Everlasting Burnings

[bbyrd009]

But by definition, there is nothing relative about the world and the kingdom of God, for the one is darkness and the other light.

but the Erets is left entirely out of this equation, hmm.
wherein the relationship might be discovered, iow
God made the Earth, not the World
the one relative to both is "Earth."
imo

Let's hear it.

He who says he knows, does not

They did not know before, as this world is God's revelation of it.

ah, "they."
Thank God we are not they, huh?
lol
where have we heard this before, Scott?

The "end" is marked by the knowledge of the truth. In this there is no defiance of scripture.

He who says he knows does not in fact know squat

 

[Helen]

so you say; got a Quote? i ask bc i seem to have one says the exact opposite, that i'm waiting to spring on you
chronological days are as subjective as time is, doesn't mean either one does not exist though, does it? A movie is an illusion too, right; a series of still pictures presented so as to provide the illusion of life. Yet a story can still be told or recorded that way. That will hold up in court as evidence.
point 1 I also am, I am, and I am not God
point 2 that maybe covers "I am that I am," but this is obv a diff concept than "I AM," which is what we are called to "Understand."

i also have Scrip contesting this wadr. Contesting your ability to make a statement that is unequivocally "right and true," and contesting their ability to state "i am eternally damned" and have it be true, both

then why were they damned? How did you come to know "before the beginning" or "after the end," in defiance of Scripture? i can dig It up and Quote for you if you like Scott
isn't the only connection that you can state with any certainty exactly that they exist in time, in this world, Scott?

Goodness, I popped into this thread as I had not looked at it before....It doesn't take much to confuses me...but this thread it too hard for my tiny pea sized brain to comprehend.
Have at it! Bless you and @ScottA :)

 

[Enoch111]

...but this thread it too hard for my tiny pea sized brain to comprehend.

Are you suggesting that you rank among the dinosaurs?;)

You should check out this term -- Encephalisation Quotient, or EQ. Of course this off topic other than for what you said.

 

[ScottA]

ah. then why do we call them "beliefs" rather than "absolute truths" do you think

i suggest that that is all one can possibly do, even if they deceive themselves into believing their beliefs are ATs along the way

That is the difference between "believing" and "knowing." I can speak to beliefs, but I don't dabble in them. Truth is not debatable.

 

[ScottA]

well that is one def, the one you have read and take at face value, but obv there are other valid defs of "I am," which is not the same as "I AM" anyway right
or even "I Am."
so you say, but i was not claiming to be the I Am anyway, which we curiously do not ever find written like that. We have a perfectly acceptable sense of "i am," that i was using

No. The only "I am" of context here, is God and His eternal...which is not debatable. Whether you voice it or not, our opinion is not allowed.

As for your claims, you very much indeed did challenge the Godly definition. And you have shown yourself wrong.

 

[ScottA]

so,

so you say

says you at least; i most certainly "am," even if i am not "I Am."

it most certainly is not, that is (possibly) "I Am," a title, and we still are not talking about "I AM," what we are called to "Understand."
plus i don't think you can Quote your definition anyway, can you? It is an assumption, not a Quote iow. So iow we are off on a lark to avoid the point, near as i can tell

You should have quit while you were just wrong, rather than going on and on making a case for your own worldly existence while abusing God's choice of terms to reveal His nature, as if it were a word game. It's not.

 

[ScottA]

what does this even mean, Scott? And why do you say "the only" as if you knew?

Have you found the 95%+ of creation that no one else can find, but that we know exists?

It means that the object of all parables is not the subject...not 95+, but 100%.

 

[ScottA]

but the Erets is left entirely out of this equation, hmm.
wherein the relationship might be discovered, iow
God made the Earth, not the World
the one relative to both is "Earth."
imo

You don't even know what you are saying. Do you mean matter? Apparently you do not know the truth of it.

Both are energy. The fact that there are different types of energy, does not help your case. On the contrary, it shows your hand as lacking.

He who says he knows, does not

He who says he knows does not in fact know squat

Two half-truths, do not make one truth, but rather a double wrong (again).

 

[bbyrd009]

That is the difference between "believing" and "knowing." I can speak to beliefs, but I don't dabble in them. Truth is not debatable.

and we have a Scriptural name for people who do that Scott, what is it?

Two half-truths, do not make one truth, but rather a double wrong (again).

i just only Quoted a v of Scripture, Scott; address It how you will

 

[ScottA]

and we have a Scriptural name for people who do that Scott, what is it?

i just only Quoted a v of Scripture, Scott; address It how you will

You quoted the scripture that agrees with you, and left out the one that disagrees with you.

You have established only one thing: that you do not have the whole counsel of God.

 

[bbyrd009]

ah, "they."
Thank God we are not they, huh?
lol
where have we heard this before, Scott?

guess maybe you accidentally forgot this one

 

[bbyrd009]

and left out the one that disagrees with you.

ah, and which one is that, Scotty, i don't see any Quote that i missed up there, do you?

i Quoted a v about knowing, and you changed the subject to me, is what i am seeing anyway;

That is the difference between "believing" and "knowing." I can speak to beliefs, but I don't dabble in them. Truth is not debatable.

in a completely Scripture-free statement, near as i can tell wadr

Two half-truths, do not make one truth, but rather a double wrong (again).

...was your entire answer to the verse Quoted. You did not ID the "half truths," nor did you ID a "double wrong," unless i missed a snip or something? Or an entire post?

You have established only one thing: that you do not have the whole counsel of God.

never said i did Scottie; that was you did that, right, not me;

That is the difference between "believing" and "knowing." I can speak to beliefs, but I don't dabble in them. Truth is not debatable.

bro just claim you are God and get it over with already lol

 

[bbyrd009]

and we have a Scriptural name for people who do that Scott, what is it?

here, you accidentally forgot another one

 

[bbyrd009]

No. The only "I am" of context here, is God and His eternal...which is not debatable.

you might note it is written two diff ways in English, and the third way is omitted in English.

I am is not I AM, but you can debate it all you like if you want i guess

but i mean let's be honest; this is all a big jerk-off to avoid the point that a perfectly understandable statement can be made by a human, that begins "I am," and that God might also use to make the same point. And then there is "I Am," a Title, which we omit in English bc scribes, and then there is "I AM," with the "am" emphatic

 

[ScottA]

ah, and which one is that, Scotty, i don't see any Quote that i missed up there, do you?

i Quoted a v about knowing, and you changed the subject to me, is what i am seeing anyway;

He who says he knows, does not

So you said. Give me the scripture you claim to be quoting and I will show you the other scripture that you left out.

 

[ScottA]

here, you accidentally forgot another one

I see you are still bouncing around like a pinball. Perhaps you should just take one thing at a time. And quit being cagey. If you have a name for people from scripture to make your point - spit it out.

 

[bbyrd009]

1 Corinthians 8:2 then, for you

 

[ScottA]

1)i see you are still avoiding pertinent questions that don't suit you, too; perhaps you should go into a closet and suck eggs, Scottie, bc i am not interested in your battle of wills, ok

2)so we can do this again?




1 Corinthians 8:2 then, and i wish you the best with this trying to make Nihilism into Christianity, ok. Fwiw i have nihilist friends, too, but then they aren't pretending they are God

And this is the very reason you don't get answers...

But here is scripture from Jesus who was accused of the same thing that you have now accused me of, which you have either conveniently overlooked or do not know:

John 3:11
"Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness."

This is God's method of operation...and yet you speak against it.

 

[bbyrd009]

And this is the very reason you don't get answers...

ah, i'm pretty sure i'm not getting answers bc you refuse to answer the Q, and instead want to change the subject every time you get a Q you don't like

 

[ScottA]

ah, i'm pretty sure i'm not getting answers bc you refuse to answer the Q, and instead want to change the subject every time you get a Q you don't like

I just answered your question on two different threads...after you made both of them all personal. It is rather clear what the problem is.