2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
Are you claiming you know James wrote as many letters as Paul? I don't think
James was any more clearer than any of the others writers. For they can all
be easily misunderstood, the JWs and many Christian denominations is proof.
Are you claiming you know James wrote as many letters as Paul?
No. That is not what I said. That is not what I meant anyone to understand. However many James wrote, more room was given to the Apostle Paul.
Luke wrote no letters that I know of. Yet Luke occupies a large bulk of New Testament writing in his Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts.
I don't think James was any more clearer than any of the others writers. For they can all be easily misunderstood, the JWs and many Christian denominations is proof.
I may not be following you here. What I wrote, in essence, was that Paul's insight into the nature of the new covenant was clearer than that of James the brother of Jesus.
But there is no need to pit one man against the other in a competitive way. All are ours as Christians, whether Paul or Peter or Apollos or James. All are ours. And we are Christ's. And Christ is God's.
James persuaded Paul to pretend he was still under the old law keeping rituals of Moses. James thought this would appease the suspicious Jews and Jewish disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem. Paul went along with the "trick". And it blew up in his face.
I believe that it was after this experience that Paul wrote some of his clearest letters on the nature of the new covenant - Ephesians, Galatians, Philppians, and Colossians.
My opinion is that he thought something like "I'll NEVER make that mistake again."
Originally posted by jaywillIt is just a matter of emphasis in my opinion. But do you consider me anAre you claiming you know James wrote as many letters as Paul?
No. That is not what I said. That is not what I meant anyone to understand. However many James wrote, more room was given to the Apostle Paul.
Luke wrote no letters that I know of. Yet Luke occupies a large bulk of New Testament writing in his Gospel of Luke and the boo ...[text shortened]...
My opinion is that he thought something like "I'll NEVER make that mistake again."
embarrassment?
1 edit
by usmc7257 Oh by the way...... You cheat at chess
reply by RJHinds I don't condemn you. You are welcome to your opinion, but remember that
opinion is not science.
I just noticed that in the whole debate about RJH's cheating, the focus has been on how one can be found out, and how reliable that is.
At no time did RJH ever categorically deny this - maybe he IS, after all, hesitant to pronounce an outright lie. Which, I suppose, is good!
So here is a direct question, Ron, YES or NO: Do you use chess engines in some of your RHP games?
2 edits
Originally posted by CalJustYou are wrong. Go to the Chess Form, towards end of 1st page, thread entitled
by usmc7257 [b]Oh by the way...... You cheat at chess
reply by RJHinds I don't condemn you. You are welcome to your opinion, but remember that
opinion is not science.
I just noticed that in the whole debate about RJH's cheating, the focus has been on how one can be found out, and how reliable that is.
At no time did R ...[text shortened]... a direct question, Ron, YES or NO: Do you use chess engines in some of your RHP games?[/b]
"Did White Use Computer Engine" then go to the 14th page and you will see the
challenge to swear that I did not use a computer engine during a RHP game on
post 3. My answer is in post 11 on that page.
P.S. The first to ask that question was Proper Knob in a personal message to me.
He was the first to accuse me.
Originally posted by CalJustJust remember if and when you get an answer that RJH is an admitted troll, fake, cheat and liar
by usmc7257 [b]Oh by the way...... You cheat at chess
reply by RJHinds I don't condemn you. You are welcome to your opinion, but remember that
opinion is not science.
I just noticed that in the whole debate about RJH's cheating, the focus has been on how one can be found out, and how reliable that is.
At no time did R ...[text shortened]... a direct question, Ron, YES or NO: Do you use chess engines in some of your RHP games?[/b]
Originally posted by RJHindsSorry, can't find it.Went to page 11, then page 14 and there is nothing on that page.
You are wrong. Go to the Chess Form, towards end of 1st page, thread entitled
"Did White Use Computer Engine" then go to the 14th page and you will see the
challenge to swear that I did not use a computer engine during a RHP game on
post 3. My answer is in post 11 on that page.
P.S. The first to ask that question was Proper Knob in a personal message to me.
He was the first to accuse me.
So I still don't know. Why so evasive? Why not humour me and say: I was asked before and I said categorically NO, I do not do that??!
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustIt's interesting that on page 15 of that thread RJHinds said this to Zygalski:
Sorry, can't find it.Went to page 11, then page 14 and there is nothing on that page.
"Since you have agreed to be fair and have apparently judged me as a cheat. Then I will agree to the punishment you believe fair. I will agree to leave this website and resign all games in progress if you believe that is appropriate."
RJHinds to Zygalski: "What is your decision as Judge of this matter. Am I quilty? Yes or No."
Zygalski's judgement was "The analysis indicates idiotic engine use". [same page, top]
And yet RJHinds is still here. How odd!
Originally posted by CalJustIt is post 11 on page 14. Look for my reply to Rank outsider on page 14.
Sorry, can't find it.Went to page 11, then page 14 and there is nothing on that page.
So I still don't know. Why so evasive? Why not humour me and say: I was asked before and I said categorically NO, I do not do that??!
Forget about page 11. It is post 11 the one replying to Rank outsider on
page 14. I would reference the post id number if I knew how to do that.
Originally posted by RJHindsThe forum page in question:
It is post 11 on page 14. Look for my reply to Rank outsider on page 14.
Forget about page 11. It is post 11 the one replying to Rank outsider on
page 14. I would reference the post id number if I knew how to do that.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=145363&page=14
Post 3 by rank outsider:
Given these statistics, RJHinds, I think it would be interesting to know if you are prepared to swear, in the name of Jesus Christ, that you have never used an engine during any competitive game on the RHP site.
Post 11 by RJHinds:
Proper Knob asked me a similiar question in a messege he sent to me and I said, "No". He did not believe me and I doubt you will either. Jesus said,
“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
(Matthew 5:33-37 NKJV)
Post 12 by RJHinds in response to Zygalski
What is your decision as Judge of this matter. Am I quilty? Yes or No.
Post 1 on the next page by Zygalski
The analysis indicates idiotic engine use.
Post 7 by RJHinds:
Since you have agreed to be fair and have apparently judged me as a cheat.
Then I will agree to the punishment you believe fair. I will agree to leave this
website and resign all games in progress if you believe that is appropriate. It
is your call.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be reply. However, I think this exchange fairly decisively labels RJHinds as both a cheat and a liar and that RJ himself accepts this. It's only the decision on the punishment that is missing.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinWhat does 'the honourable thing to do' for RJHinds have to do with a poster called Zygalski? Why is RJHinds still here?
However, I think this exchange fairly decisively labels RJHinds as both a cheat and a liar and that RJ himself accepts this. It's only the decision on the punishment that is missing.