Originally posted by @thinkofoneThis question is ON TOPIC in any thread on a spirituality forum.
I take it you realize your question has nothing to do with either of the matters at hand and so chose not to respond to my post.
Did you really need to have it all spelled out for you to realize it?
Just because you "want to know" something doesn't make a question on-topic. You realize that there's a reason that rajk999 has a policy of not answerin ...[text shortened]... personal questions, don't you?
You do realize that GoaD is just trolling as usual, don't you?
Telling us if you believe God exists, or if Jesus exists is very relevant.
And in case you didn't realize, threads take multiple avenues all the time.
2 edits
Originally posted by @chaney3This question is ON TOPIC in any thread on a spirituality forum.
This question is ON TOPIC in any thread on a spirituality forum.
Telling us if you believe God exists, or if Jesus exists is very relevant.
And in case you didn't realize, threads take multiple avenues all the time.
If that's the case, then you'll have no problem formulating a cogent argument detailing exactly how the question directly pertains to the following:
What does your question have to do with either of the matters at hand? Once again the matters at hand are:
1) "Man cannot make himself righteous..." and whether or that not is contained in the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry
2) "Jesus said that unless we believe in Him we are condemned already" and specifically what did Jesus say believing in Him entails in the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.
And in case you didn't realize, threads take multiple avenues all the time.
And in case you didn't realize, many choose not to address every red herring that gets tossed out when they do.
Sometimes I have to wonder about you, C3.
Originally posted by @thinkofoneYou only just saw that question? I'd suggest reviewing some of my previous responses to
You know, you could have simply asked this question in the first place and I would have answered.But instead you went off on another tangent that amounted to little more than a rant that vacuously condemned my position and regurgitated the dogma that he was taught. So I asked you to address the matter at hand. If you had simply asked this question at tha ...[text shortened]... ishonesty. Apologize. Promise to address the two matters at hand. And I'll answer this question.
you.
1 edit
Originally posted by @kellyjayGiven your posting history, your lack of integrity comes as no surprise.
You only just saw that question? I'd suggest reviewing some of my previous responses to
you.
Even at that, I'll give you yet another chance to show some integrity.
You know, you could have simply asked this question in the first place and I would have answered.But instead you went off on another tangent that amounted to little more than a rant that vacuously condemned my position and regurgitated the dogma that he was taught. So I asked you to address the matter at hand. If you had simply asked this question at that point, I would have answered.
Then you dishonestly played all innocent and said you were "attempting to figure out what [I ] mean by 'during His ministry'" which was BS, so I called you on it. Then you kept heaping BS upon BS.
Even at that, tell you what KJ. Admit your dishonesty. Apologize. Promise to address the two matters at hand. And I'll answer this question.
2 edits
Question:
If in Luke Jesus began His ministry by proclaiming He was the fulfillment of Isaiah's word about the year of Jubilee, why did they get angry?
He came to set captives free, recover the sight to the blind as the Anointed of God, proclaim the acceptable year of all pardon and release.
Since this should be such good news to everyone, WHY did the occasion end with the audience attempting to execute Jesus by throwing Him off the edge of a cliff ?
"And all in the synagogue were filled with anger when they heard these things, And they rose up and cast Him out of the city and led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built so that they might throw Him down the cliff." (Luke 4:28,29)
ThinkOfOne champions Luke 4:14-21 as such a universally positive proclamation. How come then they wanted to KILL Jesus into the same occasion afterwards?
Originally posted by @stellspalfieWhen He laid down His life for us He took on all of our guilt, and became sin for us, so
How did he becoming sin? How does the Jesus who wasn't sin differ to the Jesus who was sin?
that we could be forgiven since he was/is the perfect sacrifice.
Afterwards He now sits at God's right hand interceding for us.
1 John 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
2 Corinthians 5: 21
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Mark 16:19
So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.
Acts 5:31
God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.
Romans 8:34
Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.
Originally posted by @thinkofone[/b]I've given you honest answers each time I responded to you, you can accuse me of
Given your posting history, your lack of integrity comes as no surprise.
Even at that, I'll give you yet another chance to show some integrity.You know, you could have simply asked this question in the first place and I would have answered.But instead you went off on another tangent that amounted to little more than a rant that vacuously cond ...[text shortened]... ologize. Promise to address the two matters at hand. And I'll answer this question.
wrong doing all you want, and question my integrity too. I'm not moved by your
accusations, they come with great frequently, and given to large variety of people here,
many I agree with, and those I don't normally.
If you ever do want to have a conversation on this topic let me know. I still want to know
what mean by, "during His ministry" but I'm not going to hold me breath waiting for you
to tell me.
2 edits
Originally posted by @kellyjayLet's see.
I've given you honest answers each time I responded to you, you can accuse me of
wrong doing all you want, and question my integrity too. I'm not moved by your
accusations, they come with great frequently, and given to large variety of people here,
many I agree with, and those I don't normally.
If you ever do want to have a conversation on this topic ...[text shortened]... mean by, "during His ministry" but I'm not going to hold me breath waiting for you
to tell me.
KJ pretends to not understand how his integrity could be questioned. This despite the fact it has been repeatedly pointed out. Not only quite pointedly at the time, but also in detail as follows as well as in summary at least a couple of times. Evidently his lack of integrity has no bounds:
The following assertion was made by KJ:
<<Man cannot make himself righteous... >>
So I countered with the following:
Such a concept is not contained in the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.
If you believe that concept is contained in the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry, then cite all the passages where Jesus preached that concept during His ministry.
If you cannot cite any passages, then you believe in a different gospel than the one preached by Jesus during His ministry. If you cannot cite any passages, then you believe in a different gospel than the one Jesus said He was anointed to preach.
KJ was unable to cite any passages where Jesus preached that concept during His ministry. So he deflected by going off on a tangent and made the following assertion:
<<Jesus said that unless we believe in Him we are condemned already.>>
So I countered with the following:
Yes, Jesus said that.
And Jesus said that in the gospel preached by Him during His ministry.
And in the gospel preached by Him during His ministry, what did Jesus say believing in Him entails?
KJ gave a vague answer, so I asked him for specifics and to back up those specifics with passages from the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.
Thus far KJ has refused to provide specifics and to back up those specifics with passages from the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.
Instead he went off on another tangent that amounted to little more than a rant that vacuously condemned my position and regurgitated the dogma that he was taught . So I asked him to get back to the matter at hand.
Then he played all innocent and said he was "attempting to figure out what [I ] mean by 'during His ministry' which was BS, so I called him on it.
4 edits
ThinkOfOne,
You are addicted to the phrase "Jesus during His ministry"
Please enumerate five or six teachings and deeds from Jesus Christ in the Gospels which were not "during His ministry."
Chapters scope and verse scope will do.
Ie. Matthew N:n through N:n were not spoken by Jesus "during His ministry."
Ie. John N:n through N:n were not spoken by Jesus "during His ministry."
Five or six strong samples please.
Originally posted by @sonshipC'mon jaywill. How can you so consistently get things so muddled up? Seriously, learn to read in context. Take a class or something. It'll help you to be able to understand not only other posters in this forum, but scripture as well.
Question:
If in [b]Luke Jesus began His ministry by proclaiming He was the fulfillment of Isaiah's word about the year of Jubilee, why did they get angry?
He came to set captives free, recover the sight to the blind as the Anointed of God, proclaim the acceptable year of all pardon and release.
Since this should be such good news to everyo ...[text shortened]... proclamation. How come then they wanted to KILL Jesus into the same occasion afterwards?[/b]
ThinkOfOne champions Luke 4:14-21 as such a universally positive proclamation.
Actually ThinkOfOne was pointing out the fact that in Luke 4:18-19 Jesus declared the purpose for which He was anointed, i.e,, what makes Him the Christ. You believe that the purpose for which He was anointed was very different.
If in Luke Jesus began His ministry by proclaiming He was the fulfillment of Isaiah's word about the year of Jubilee, why did they get angry?...How come then they wanted to KILL Jesus into the same occasion afterwards?
The fact is that they were angered by what Jesus had to say in the intervening verses: (Luke 4:23-27) in response to them calling question to what He had to say (Luke 4:22b). Note that the initial reaction was positive (Luke 22a).
Originally posted by @chaney3My response immediately followed your post. You might want to check first.
Bump for ThinkOfOne. 😀
Originally posted by @thinkofoneI saw your post, and it's unacceptable.
My response immediately followed your post. You might want to check first.
Hence the bump, and 😀.
Please try again.
You realize a few are accusing you of having NO backbone, for refusing to share something extremely relevant.
Originally posted by @sonshipPlease enumerate five or six teachings and deeds from Jesus Christ in the Gospels which were not "during His ministry."
ThinkOfOne,
You are addicted to the phrase "Jesus during His ministry"
Please enumerate five or six teachings and deeds from Jesus Christ in the Gospels which were not "during His ministry."
Chapters scope and verse scope will do.
Ie. [b] Matthew N:n through N:n were not spoken by Jesus "during His ministry."
Ie. John ...[text shortened]... rough N:n were not spoken by Jesus "during His ministry."
Five or six strong samples please.
What would be the point of doing that? It's not as if I never pointed out to you the definition of "during His ministry" - not only in general, but as I've been using it.
1 edit
Originally posted by @chaney3lol. Nice try.Why not simply admit that you didn't see my post?
I saw your post, and it's unacceptable.
Hence the bump, and 😀.
Please try again.
You realize a few are accusing you of having NO backbone, for refusing to share something extremely relevant.
I saw your post, and it's unacceptable.
What's "unacceptable" is the lack of a cogent argument from you. Put one together and then we'll talk.
You realize a few are accusing you of having NO backbone, for refusing to share something extremely relevant.
Well, if I were still a young teen, it might bother me. What's disturbing is that you and others continue to act as if you WERE still young teens.