Originally posted by FeceManThe Alpha and Omega means with out beginning or ending. We are part of God right? Then this would mean we had no beginning nor ending. What would make you think we are so stagnated? Are we only temporary in our existence. If so, then we are not made in Gods image.
He's not going to reincarnate.
Gods images consists of what then.
Originally posted by debbiejo
The Alpha and Omega means with out beginning or ending. We are part of God right? Then this would mean we had no beginning nor ending. What would make you think we are so stagnated? Are we only temporary in our existence. If so, then we are not made in Gods image.Gods images consists of what then.
Originally posted by Marchello
***You are a LIAR and have proved NOTHING. Too, you do not understand the simplest things in the Word of God for you are UNREGENERATE and know NOT God that you might be saved.**********************************************
***You speak with a forked tongue. On the one hand, you DENY that God is the ROCK even though the Scriptures DECLARE He IS...and say, on the other hand, that it doesn't matter if all the words meant ROCK...that He is YOUR only ROCK even though you DON'T really believe He is the ROCK. Clearly you are CONFUSED or on DRUGS.
I seriously suggest that you see a doctor because I suspect that you have mental problems.
Marchello
Hmmm. Still frothing at the mouth, attacking everyone including fellow Christians and dreaming of a Heaven that by your rigid standards I am guessing will be populated by you and... well, no one. I doubt even Jesus would pass your stringent entrance exams.
Jesus: "Spend eternity with Marchello? Christ, that would be like a new crucifixion every God-damned day. Ooops, pardon my language dad."
God: "Hey, no need to apologise, I mean sweet dancing Jesus it'd be absolute hell on earth in Heaven."
Satan: "Hahahaha, well you want insane zealots you get insane zealots. pwned."
But if I may ask a question - have you gotten just a tad more insulting? Isn't there something in your faith about how that isn't good? Or maybe I'm just thinking of some crazy, unholy devil spawned thing called common sense that would imply that a bit of control and less judgemental screaming would be valued more by a supposedly good God then being able to say "I'm the rightest person I know in my interpretation of faith.."
Declaration: Reasoning with Marchello has failed; logical discourse is to no avail.
Conjecture: Marchello is a Calvinist.
Evidence: FeceMan has debated with Calvinists, and they have demonstrated similar behavior.
Plausible Conclusion: Marchello is a Calvinist.
Secondary Plausible Conclusion: Marchello does not like Arminianists.
Declaration: Since logical discourse has failed, one must devise another approach to Marchello.
Statement: Immediate removal of Marchello's posting privileges would seem an adequate move.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Declaration: Reasoning with Marchello has failed; logical discourse is to no avail.Conjecture: Marchello is a Calvinist.
Evidence: FeceMan has debated with Calvinists, and they have demonstrated similar behavior.
Plausible Conclusion: Marchello is a Calvinist.
Secondary Plausible Conclusion: Marchello does not like Arminianists.Declaration: Since logical discourse has failed, one must devise another approach to Marchello.
Statement: Immediate removal of Marchello's posting privileges would seem an adequate move.
Wow Feceman, I have no qualms with you on this...I agree with you 100% 👆
*["...2 Samuel 22:2 does not say anything about a rock. I just read it. I'm going to assume you are referring to the word "sel'a" which means "a shadow or shelter". The verse does not apply in the manner you wish it to..."]
***Au contrare...indeed, it DOES say "Rock." Your definition of the word "cela'" [i.e., your spelling 'sel'a"] is INCORRECT and does NOT mean "a shadow or shelter" as you allege. "Cela'" is an Aramaic word that means "craggy rock" according to [STRONGS EXPANDED DICTIONARY OF BIBLE WORDS, page 219, Strong #5553]. Too, the Jewish Publication Society in their 1917 Edition of the Hebrew Bible [i.e., the flagship edition of Jewish Orthodoxy] translates [2 Samuel 22:2-3] from the Hebrew into English as follows:
á åÇéÌÉàîÇø: éÀäåÈä
ñÇìÀòÄé åÌîÀöËãÈúÄé,
{ø} åÌîÀôÇìÀèÄé-ìÄé.
(2) "and he said: The LORD is my ROCK,
and my fortress, and my deliverer;
â àÁìÉäÅé öåÌøÄé,
àÆçÁñÆä-áÌåÉ; {ñ}
îÈâÄðÌÄé åÀ÷ÆøÆï
éÄùÑÀòÄé, {ø}
îÄùÒÀâÌÇáÌÄé åÌîÀðåÌñÄé,
{ñ} îÉùÑÄòÄé, îÅçÈîÈñ
úÌÉùÑÄòÅðÄé. {ø}
(3) "The God who is my ROCK, in Him I take
refuge; my shield, and my horn of
salvation, my high tower, and my refuge;
my SAVIOUR, Thou savest me from
violence."
The INSPIRED Word of God [in BOTH the OT and NT] has just PROVED you to be a DECEIVER and LIAR...who strives to ROB David's and my SAVIOUR [v.3] of His rightful TITLE [ROCK...1 Coreinthians 10:4] and appropriate it to someone else. There is NO DOUBT as to who the ROCK is in ALL of the passages in dispute [1 Samuel 2:2;2 Samuel 22:2;3:3;Psalms 28:1;18:2;89:26].
************************************************
*["Also, if you believe that Jesus was speaking Greek to Peter and not Aramaic you are stupid considering the evidence to the contrary. Sadly for you, in Aramaic there is no difference in the names."]
***Being the great Catholic apologist that you are it is understandable that you would take the Catholic position that says that the "rock" cannot refer to Jesus, "but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in the Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for 'Peter' and 'rock'."
The PROBLEM is that the TEXT is NOT in Aramaic, but GREEK. Since we do NOT have the Aramaic TEXT, it is NOT proper NOR scientific to refer to it as PROOF or EVIDENCE of you or your Catholic mentors' position.
Furthermore, in [John 1:42] it says, "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," (which is translated Peter." The word "Peter" here is PETROS, not PETRA. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic KEPHAS, which is NOT a NAME in Aramaic. "Except in John 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic KEPHAS, PETROS is used in the NT ONLY as a NAME for Simon Peter...The translation supports the view that KEPHAS is NOT a proper NAME, since one DOES NOT usually translate proper NAMES" [SOURCE: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon: Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA. Logos Research Systems, Inc.].
The truth is that the ONLY foundation is Jesus. The ONLY rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as His redeemed, need to keep our eyes ONLY on Him. We are to look to NO ONE else as the FOUNDATION, the SOURCE, ot the HOPE in which the Church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, NOT Peter.
Marchello
*["...Statement: Immediate removal of Marchello's posting privileges would seem an adequate move.
***To the resident at the bottom of the toilet bowl:
It is strange that you [i.e., a good "christian" boy] find my words more offensive than the filth that emanates from your "girlfriend" Kali's mouth.
However, I do understand your hostility toward me and your attraction to Goddess Kali. I take a regular shower everday and smell "clean." On the other hand, you reside in the toilet and have an "aroma" about you that Goddess Kali finds appealing since you both have an attraction to that part of the body from which that "aroma" emanates.
Marchello
Originally posted by Marchello
[B]*["...Statement: Immediate removal of Marchello's posting privileges would seem an adequate move.***To the resident at the bottom of the toilet bowl:
It is strange that you [i.e., a good "christian" boy] find my words more offensive than the filth that emanates from your "girlfriend" Kali's mouth.
However, I do understand your hostility toward me and your attraction to Goddess Kali. I take a regular shower everday and smell "clean." On the other hand, you reside in the toilet and have an "aroma" about you that Goddess Kali finds appealing since you both have an attraction to that part of the body from which that "aroma" emanates.Marchello [/B]
😆 😆 😆
YOU ARE HILARIOUS DUDE !!!! I LIKE U AGAIN !!!!
Originally posted by Marchello
***Au contrare...indeed, it DOES say "Rock." Your definition of the word "cela'" [i.e., your spelling 'sel'a"] is INCORRECT and does NOT mean "a shadow or shelter" as you allege. "Cela'" is an Aramaic word that means "craggy rock" according to [STRONGS EXPANDED DICTIONARY OF BIBLE WORDS, page 219, Strong #5553]. Too, the Jewish Publication Society in their 1917 Edition of the Hebrew Bible [i.e., the flagship edition of Jewish Orthodoxy] translates [2 Samuel 22:2-3] from the Hebrew into English as follows:Etc. Etc. Etc.
And this for me is the madness in modern Christianity given some sort of hideous life so it can stagger around screeching and flailing while oozing all over the place.
Doctrine differences. Such, such passionate disagreements about the term "rock". I mean seriously. And it really makes me question the chosen medium of God (the Bible) when even the most basic thing such as this can cause such friction. God clearly did make it... clear, clearly lacked the understanding of fundamental humanity to realise his "word" could be broken down in so many different ways.
Marchello, you won't respond, but I have to ask - would you condemn a person to hell based upon reading the word rock different to you?
*["Marchello, you won't respond, but I have to ask - would you condemn a person to hell based upon reading the word rock different to you?"]
***No. Only God [i.e., Jesus Christ] can make that consignment and WILL in the Last Day upon those who have HEARD His Word and REJECTED it.
The DIFFERENCE between me and my opponent is that he does NOT understand the Word of God and DENIES what it declares...despite the FACT that the EVIDENCE is there and STARING him in the FACE. He CANNOT nor WILL NOT believe it. Therefore, I can only conclude that: "But if our gospel be HID, it is HID to them that are LOST: In whom the god of this world hath BLINDED the minds of them which believe NOT, lest the LIGHT of the glorious GOSPEL of Christ, who is the IMAGE of God, should smile unto them" [2 Corinthians 4:3-4].
Marchello
Originally posted by Marchello
[B]*["Marchello, you won't respond, but I have to ask - would you condemn a person to hell based upon reading the word rock different to you?"]***No. Only God [i.e., Jesus Christ] can make that consignment and WILL in the Last Day upon those who have HEARD His Word and REJECTED it.
The DIFFERENCE between me and my opponent is that he does NOT understand the Word of God and DENIES what it declares...despite the FACT that the EVIDENCE is there and STARING him in the FACE. He CANNOT nor WILL NOT believe it. Therefore, I can only conclude that: "But if our gospel be HID, it is HID to them that are LOST: In whom the god of this world hath BLINDED the minds of them which believe NOT, lest the LIGHT of the glorious GOSPEL of Christ, who is the IMAGE of God, should smile unto them" [2 Corinthians 4:3-4].
Marchello [/B]
Shut the **** up
Originally posted by Marchello
***No. Only God [i.e., Jesus Christ] can make that consignment and WILL in the Last Day upon those who have HEARD His Word and REJECTED it.
That is something of a cop out. Let me word it differently - do you BELIEVE a person should end up in Hell based upon such matters?
And this whole "heard his word and rejected it. It just doesn't stick.
Say, for example, I join a political party, the Glokspeils or something. But while I hold to their common values and political goals I might believe, I don't know, that a political text written 100 years ago by two guys was more the work of Author A rather then Author B (Author B being the commonly accepted main contributor of the work) - now would the fact I have a slightly different belief then many others in the party regarding the interpretation of their text mean I am not a Glokspeils despite the fact all it takes to be defined as one is adherence to the overall party?
No, and it doesn't mean Nellinator isn't Christian because his view is different then your own. Don't make me quote the theological and historic definition of a Christian again. What a person has faith in makes them a Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist or whatever. Their doctrinal views are what make them a particular type of Christian of Muslim etc.
And if you can honestly say that a person deserves to miss out on heaven because while they earnestly and completely believe in God and Jesus (as they people most certainly do) they have a slightly different interpretation of what a text means, then I seriously question whether you posses some of the most basic part of what people claim a question is. And if your God is actually like that then he is not a God that I would want to know.
The DIFFERENCE between me and my opponent is that he does NOT understand the Word of God and DENIES what it declares...despite the FACT that the EVIDENCE is there and STARING him in the FACE. He CANNOT nor WILL NOT believe it. Therefore, I can only conclude that: "But if our gospel be HID, it is HID to them that are LOST: In whom the god of this world hath BLINDED the minds of them which believe NOT, lest the LIGHT of the glorious GOSPEL of Christ, who is the IMAGE of God, should smile unto them" [2 Corinthians 4:3-4].Marchello
How do you know he is wrong and you are right?