Gods Standard is...

[bbyrd009]

Okay, never mind. Yes, you're right, the temptation in the wilderness was just a Playacting joke according to me. You're right, I've robbed God of His glory. Carry on.

imo you can't have it both ways, sbg have your cake and eat it too

I just don't expect say...you, epi, or Amadeus, or Helen, or Nancy, to come at me with the same debating technique as....say, p4t. I used to slip into to it. I'd answer with their mode of speaking because it was just how everyone spoke in debates. But I abhor the accepted mode. I won't do it.it's not the Helen I know

ah i thought that was "Hegelian..." hmm

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Hi Stunned,
I'm not sure what you mean by "the mode" of debating? Has any of those you mentioned been mean or nasty with their replies? I hope I did not do that

Ahhh, no, you have not been nasty! And Helen did not have nastiness in her heart either! I just don't like that mode that we've learned in here! Its...accusatory. It doesn't promote wholesome conversation. Its done out of habit by us sometimes. I just don't respond to it. I just dont want to engage with you guys in that mode. I mean, if I responded in that same mode, it would be something like...oh, so you think almost all of the word of God in the OT was in danger of being wiped out?? And where does that get us? No. I won't respond to that mode and I won't answer in that same mode. I refuse to talk to people I dearly love like that.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

imo you can't have it both ways, sbg have your cake and eat it too

ah i thought that was "Hegelian..." hmm

Dude, I have enough cake that I can have it, eat it, AND have plenty left over to pelt you with!

 

[aspen]

what does Mary mean, do you think?

Theotokos!

 

[aspen]

Ahhh, no, you have not been nasty! And Helen did not have nastiness in her heart either! I just don't like that mode that we've learned in here! Its...accusatory. It doesn't promote wholesome conversation. Its done out of habit by us sometimes. I just don't respond to it. I just dont want to engage with you guys in that mode. I mean, if I responded in that same mode, it would be something like...oh, so you think almost all of the word of God in the OT was in danger of being wiped out?? And where does that get us? No. I won't respond to that mode and I won't answer in that same mode. I refuse to talk to people I dearly love like that.

Unfortunately, some here confuse their Christianity with cannibalism. Predator and prey. They confuse kindness with weakness.

 

[bbyrd009]

Dude, I have enough cake that I can have it, eat it, AND have plenty left over to pelt you with!

and i'm the most humble guy on the planet, yeh

 

[bbyrd009]

Theotokos!

"I have no idea what you just said, but i find myself in complete agreement!"
Zippy the Pinhead

ya, that's prolly a litttle closer anyway

 

[bbyrd009]

what does Mary mean, do you think?

how many women were under the cross? How many Mary's? Y'all really think those discrepancies are accident all, incident all or something?

 

[APAK]

GINOLJC, to all.
first, we have a question, "was Jesus born or his flesh that he came in was BORN?".

PICJAG.

Beating around ‘the bush’ it seems with your very awkward two questions in one proposal.

Just ask me, did Jesus pre-exist in some form (a divine being, the Spirit of God, an archangel, an intelligent life-form etc.) before his flesh was born and was incarnated from this previous form into this protoplasmic body? My answer is definitely NO! No scripture supports such a radical idea.

Just in case you might have meant, was Jesus really God incarnate as the ‘2nd persona’ of God Almighty, that was born in the human flesh? Again, my answer would be NO! For the same reasons.

Such twisted and demented ideas degrade and mock God Almighty and the Messiah.

Jesus was born a new human being of God around 6-4 BC. He was conceived in the flesh 'like' the 1st Adam (Son of God) in addition, with his Father's spirit (mind component) as the 2nd Adam (Son of God). Scripture supports my conclusion.

Bless you,

APAK

 

[stunnedbygrace]

The Word (Jesus) was in the beginning with God And He WAS God.

 

[aspen]

Beating around ‘the bush’ it seems with your very awkward two questions in one proposal.

Just ask me, did Jesus pre-exist in some form (a divine being, the Spirit of God, an archangel, an intelligent life-form etc.) before his flesh was born and was incarnated from this previous form into this protoplasmic body? My answer is definitely NO! No scripture supports such a radical idea.

Just in case you might have meant, was Jesus really God incarnate as the ‘2nd persona’ of God Almighty, that was born in the human flesh? Again, my answer would be NO! For the same reasons.

Such twisted and demented ideas degrade and mock God Almighty and the Messiah.

Jesus was born a new human being of God around 6-4 BC. He was conceived in the flesh 'like' the 1st Adam (Son of God) in addition, with his Father's spirit (mind component) as the 2nd Adam (Son of God). Scripture supports my conclusion.

Bless you,

APAK

Hi APAK,

I’ve been reading your posts for awhile now and just so you know, your theology, viewed through the eyes of orthodoxy, is wrought and rife with heresy. That being said, is there a dividing line between Christianity and heresy in your mind? If so, what is it? I am asking this question in good faith because it appears that ‘anything goes’ with you and I would like to understand where you are coming from. Thanks

 

[Phoneman777]

Ha i was wracking my brain for the "etching" solvent, ty. God help you if you do that inside though!

One time I was retrofitting my car's R-12 A/C system with the much cheaper R-134a refrigerant and in the process decided to flush out the condenser and evaporator with that solvent and an air hose. Condenser went fine, but when I filled the evaporator with solvent I didn't realize the outlet tube was pointing right at my face (where the orifice tube would seat) I stuck the hose on the inlet tube and hit the trigger and a high pressure stream of that stuff shot right into my face and eyes and immediately started burning everything!!! At the hospital, they stuck these things that looked like dart gun darts with hoses on them right on each eyeball and flushed them for like a 1/2 hour. Hurt almost as bad as Hillary screeching.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Ha! Good luck Aspen. The man does not think everything we see was created through Him. He doesn't think He existed with God in the beginning. And he thinks we mock and twist scripture and degrade God because we believe what John wrote concerning Him.

 

[Phoneman777]

Ha time in numbers drives me insane lol

I know right. But vegetarian diet helps. I don't look 71, do I?

 

[Enoch111]

how many women were under the cross? How many Mary's? Y'all really think those discrepancies are accident all, incident all or something?

How about "Those are not discrepancies, and we need to dig further"?

 

[Enoch111]

Just ask me, did Jesus pre-exist in some form (a divine being, the Spirit of God, an archangel, an intelligent life-form etc.) before his flesh was born and was incarnated from this previous form into this protoplasmic body? My answer is definitely NO! No scripture supports such a radical idea.

Just in case you might have meant, was Jesus really God incarnate as the ‘2nd persona’ of God Almighty, that was born in the human flesh? Again, my answer would be NO! For the same reasons.

You do realize (I hope ) that for most Christians, what you have said is just heresy and a denial of the truth.

 

[APAK]

Hi APAK,

I’ve been reading your posts for awhile now and just so you know, your theology, viewed through the eyes of orthodoxy, is wrought and rife with heresy. That being said, is there a dividing line between Christianity and heresy in your mind? If so, what is it? I am asking this question in good faith because it appears that ‘anything goes’ with you and I would like to understand where you are coming from. Thanks

Aspen…I don’t think ‘anything goes’ reflects my writings at all. Well you must have your reasons for saying it….your perspective and not mine.

Now it seems you are a die-hard John 1:1-2 Jesus = (W)ord follower. You know you have to prove that of course if you do not want to follow some type of blind faith that actually is not in scripture. I would if I were you!

I believe you cannot support your claim with scripture. And you have to explain yourself with scripture by not just throwing down scripture after scripture that seems to hit or the cover the target without any zealous rational and logical support. You know the onus is on you to explain it, and not I as you believe it, not I.


Let me share an experience or exchange I recently had, a few weeks back, on scripture concerning you John 1:1-2. I was speaking to a Lutheran pastor. I said you know God is not triune and Jesus is not God. I said most folks use their unexplainable John 1:1-2 scripture for their holy grail support. He said no, that scripture does not show this claim. Look at Hebrew 1:8 where God gave a throne to his God. I told him the translators deliberately added bias and by being inconsistent; they added a capital ‘G’ instead of a lower-case ‘god’ and anyway, that the translation should actually be ‘the mighty one.’ He did not comment. We did agree that God did elevate Jesus above all. Not his Father though I quickly pointed out. He became silent again. Then he suddenly said well it’s a mystery right. I said no. So, he said you don’t believe that there are mysteries in scripture? Yes, although not when it comes to knowing who God Almighty Jesus’ Father, I said. We then departed ways…

Bless you,

APAK

 

[aspen]

Aspen…I don’t think ‘anything goes’ reflects my writings at all. Well you must have your reasons for saying it….your perspective and not mine.

Now it seems you are a die-hard John 1:1-2 Jesus = (W)ord follower. You know you have to prove that of course if you do not want to follow some type of blind faith that actually is not in scripture. I would if I were you!

I believe you cannot support your claim with scripture. And you have to explain yourself with scripture by not just throwing down scripture after scripture that seems to hit or the cover the target without any zealous rational and logical support. You know the onus is on you to explain it, and not I as you believe it, not I.


Let me share an experience or exchange I recently had, a few weeks back, on scripture concerning you John 1:1-2. I was speaking to a Lutheran pastor. I said you know God is not triune and Jesus is not God. I said most folks use their unexplainable John 1:1-2 scripture for their holy grail support. He said no, that scripture does not show this claim. Look at Hebrew 1:8 where God gave a throne to his God. I told him the translators deliberately added bias and by being inconsistent; they added a capital ‘G’ instead of a lower-case ‘god’ and anyway, that the translation should actually be ‘the mighty one.’ He did not comment. We did agree that God did elevate Jesus above all. Not his Father though I quickly pointed out. He became silent again. Then he suddenly said well it’s a mystery right. I said no. So, he said you don’t believe that there are mysteries in scripture? Yes, although not when it comes to knowing who God Almighty Jesus’ Father, I said. We then departed ways…

Bless you,

APAK

Umm,

Actually, I did not mention the Trinity or John 1:1-2. I asked you if you have a dividing line between orthodoxy and heresy; if so, what is it?

 

[101G]

Just in case you might have meant, was Jesus really God incarnate as the ‘2nd persona’ of God Almighty, that was born in the human flesh? Again, my answer would be NO! For the same reasons.

no need for any mombo jumbo. a simple question was asked and a simple answer would have been adequate but you had to go around the world, and still didn't answer the question corectly.

so you say Jesus didn't exist before his flesh, that a falsehood, and here's just one scripture to support this, John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made". who is the Spirit you know or rather know ... of... as God. so you're incorrect as two left shoes... (smile)..... lol.

#1. you were afraid to answer trufully. because it would expose your false assumptions of the Christ.

#2. the bible is correct, "men love darkness more than light".

now if you have any scripture that contradict John 1:3 as the Lord Jesus as "CREATOR" of all things, put it or them on the table, no small or long talk just scripture.

PICJAG.

 

[APAK]

Umm,

Actually, I did not mention the Trinity or John 1:1-2. I asked you if you have a dividing line between orthodoxy and heresy; if so, what is it?

I guess you liked a post when someone introduced John 1:1-2 once again..@stunnedbygrace ..and it would then still apply to you..correct?

Well I do not believe in what you may call orthodoxy or heresy. Although, there are areas of belief that are clearly not scriptural. They are extra-scriptural ideas that have been lodged deeply into Christianity and a triune God is one of them. That would be heresy to me and to you for saying this I am heretic I guess. I can show my support, can you?

Bless you,

APAK