Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
To all who?
You are a gigantic irony ball, do you know that?
You have to KNOW the will of the Father before you can DO the will of the Father, and from all your rambling postings here, I can't see that you know much of anything at all, about God or otherwise.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke Again, here we have you sneaking 'entitlement' in through the backdoor.
You ask, "How do I know that the portion or entitlement of the saints here in is ultimate?"
The 'or entitlement' is completely of your own manufacture. You have only provided biblical support for 'portion.' - If entitlement is what you believe to be the case then provide b ...[text shortened]... heir portion, irrespective of their behaviour? - Can you provide biblical support that they are?
And where did you get the "irrespective of their behavior" bit?
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke At your supper of words sir, 'Ultimate Entitlement' still sits uncomfortably at the table.
'Allotted portion's' there, so too 'inheritance', 'qualified' and 'prize.' One is left wondering however why none of them were deemed fit to headline in the title of the thread, giving way to a non-biblical phrase that apparently means the same thing.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke How can the OP sit comfortably sir in a thread called the ultimate entitlement, when in the very next post you say, "My version does not use the word entitlement though." 🙄
So you can 'aka' all you like, but that doesn't make the term any less non-biblical.
So you believe that the Bible is just hoo-hah, and yet you castigate him for using a word not in the Bible? Really?
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke Okay, will add 'Birthright' to 'Allotted portion,' 'inheritance', 'qualified' and 'prize.' Still no 'ultimate entitlement' hey?
Why you view it's biblical absence as unimportant is beyond me, seeing as you chose to run with it in the title of your thread, as opposed to the above terms that are there. - And yes, 'Trinity' isn't there either. You think mentioning this strengthens your case? 🙄
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke There is no ultimate entitlement. (In or out of the bible).
Look, you can puff out your chest all you like and claim you are entitled to something, but still just come across like my 5 year old nephew who stamps his feet while believing he deserves the chocolate bar in the fridge.
Reality check. You are entitled to 'nothing'. (And biblically s ...[text shortened]... e that emoticon because 'it is there.' (The same can not be said for your ultimate entitlement).
Actually, no. Your little diatribe throughout this thread is just the semantics of an unbeliever.
We ARE 'entitled' through FAITH. And pure faith is how we KNOW. God keeps his promises.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke If those words mean the same thing, why didn't sonship use one of them in the thread title, rather than one he made up?
(Psst, the answer to the above question is that they don't mean the same thing and that there is nothing in the bible about ultimate entitlement).
I can only speculate. However, if I were to speculate, I'd say he wanted to introduce a new 'approach angle' to the subject at hand. If a thesaurus deems a word a synonym, why CAN'T we use it? Because it is not in the Bible? God forbid. That is the thinking of those who worship the words of the Bible instead of God and yet their meaning still perfectly eludes them.
Originally posted by @suzianne So you believe that the Bible is just hoo-hah, and yet you castigate him for using a word not in the Bible? Really?
I don't need to believe in the bible to be able to identify when someone is trying to slip something in to the text that simply isn't supported.
The real question is why someone like yourself, who doesn't believe the Bible is just hoo-hah, is so blase about non biblical concepts being put forward as if they were biblical. You wouldn't tolerate such a thing from Eladar or Chaney.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke I don't need to believe in the bible to be able to identify when someone is trying to slip something in to the text that simply isn't supported.
The real question is why someone like yourself, who doesn't believe the Bible is just hoo-hah, is so blase about non biblical concepts being put forward as if they were biblical. You wouldn't tolerate such a thing from Eladar or Chaney.
The difference is that Eladar and cheney supplant the entire concept with their bizarre misappropriations.
The word does mean the same thing as the other words the Bible does use. Why be limited to a Bible-times vocabulary? Substituting synonyms is acceptable. Why do you think there are so many versions of the Bible? Because English is a rich language. Changing the entire meaning of passages is what Eladar and cheney do.
The people who continually chant, "That word's not in the Bible" are simpletons who do not recognize that there are many ways to express the exact same concept. And I say that if one way to express the concept grabs someone's attention where others do not and enables them to have faith then I really can't be constrained enough to think that makes their faith invalid. Eladar's problem and cheney's problem is that, by the time they run a passage through their personal filters of what they do already believe, based on their already formed biases, the meaning they glean from it has little to do with the original passage. Substituting a synonym is really a ridiculous grammar-nazi thing to get hung up on, and this is what many translations excel at: substituting a more modern word that means the same thing so that people can understand it better than the 1611 English of the KJV, for example.
Originally posted by @suzianne The difference is that Eladar and cheney supplant the entire concept with their bizarre misappropriations.
The word does mean the same thing as the other words the Bible does use. Why be limited to a Bible-times vocabulary? Substituting synonyms is acceptable. Why do you think there are so many versions of the Bible? Because English is a rich langua ...[text shortened]... ame thing so that people can understand it better than the 1611 English of the KJV, for example.
But that's not what's going on here.
Sonship opens the thread with the bold statement 'Jesus Christ is the divine and eternal entitlement of all Christians.' He then bolsters up the significance of the word 'entitlement' by providing us with it's dictionary definition.
He then casually lets us know that his version 'does not use the word entitlement though'. (As if it's omission is entirely unimportant, despite being right there in the title).
Sonship was fully aware that none of the other biblical words carried the gravitas of 'entitlement.' - Words like 'prize' etc are simply not the equivalent of the misguided pomposity he was trying (and failing) to transit.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke But that's not what's going on here.
Sonship opens the thread with the bold statement 'Jesus Christ is the divine and eternal entitlement of all Christians.' He then bolsters up the significance of the word 'entitlement' by providing us with it's dictionary definition.
He then casually lets us know that his version 'does not use the word ent ...[text shortened]... are simply not the equivalent of the misguided pomposity he was trying (and failing) to transit.
So all this is just your attempt to call him out for 'misguided pomposity'? That's merely a function of your unbelief, flavored by the similar method of others in this forum to use particular words for their unfriendly impact, despite the greasy smile that delivers them.
Yes, I, too, believe that the omission of a single word is entirely unimportant, especially as this word, as used today, had no common use when the Bible was written, and yet means the same thing. Sonship here is perhaps guilty of clarifying the concept by substituting a word many of us have heard a lot recently. But I am not convinced that he wanted to bring the word in along with its current baggage of derogatory use, as he provided the definition as a reminder to what it actually means, versus the meaning people wish to load onto it.
Ghost of a Duke: Reality check. You are entitled to 'nothing'. (And biblically speaking, that includes Jesus). In life, and faith, you have to be deserving and earn what you are given. There is nothing you are entitled to, irrespective of your actions or behaviour,..nothing.
Originally posted by @suzianne to Ghost of a Duke And where did you get the "irrespective of their behavior" bit?
You must surely have read what sonship has written about his 'Once Saved Always Saved' theology, right?
Christ, the Ultimate Entitlement
25 Aug '17 13:02
Back to Top