Originally posted by @thinkofoneLook......you consistently quote the words of Jesus, which is good. But when asked if you actually believe He walked the earth...you're silent.
lol. Nice try.Why not simply admit that you didn't see my post?
[b]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 w ...[text shortened]... r me. What's disturbing is that you and others continue to act as if you WERE still young teens.[/b]
And if Jesus said "the Father sent me", you either believe Him....and therefore believe in God.....or....He lied.
Which is it?
1 edit
Originally posted by @chaney3Since you seem to have misunderstood. That was "cogent argument" as delineated in the second post on page 8.
Look......you consistently quote the words of Jesus, which is good. But when asked if you actually believe He walked the earth...you're silent.
And if Jesus said "the Father sent me", you either believe Him....and therefore believe in God.....or....He lied.
Which is it?
1 edit
Originally posted by @thinkofoneExactly how would you know if I'm pretend to do anything, you read minds, you have a
Let's see.
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 ...[text shortened]... g to figure out what [I ] mean by 'during His ministry' which was BS, so I called him on it.[/b]
spiritual gift? Personally I think you just get a thought in your head and its true no matter
what when it comes to other posters. Repeatedly accusing someone of anything is not
proving anything, it just means you are not addressing discussion content and are relying
on personal attacks instead.
With respect to man cannot be make righteous by himself I gave you an answer, you
might not of liked it, you could have asked for more. What you did ask for was couched
in a term known only to you, "...the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry."
I asked more than once what that meant, how do I know what "during His ministry" means
to you unless you tell me, but instead of answering that question you continue your
assault on my name as if you actually had a clue.
I'm not of the opinion I have to see a direct quote from Jesus to get something from God,
if someone filled with the Holy Spirit says something from God it is the same for me, as
there is not distinction between the two where they would differ on any point, and Jesus
sent the Holy Spirit here to us.
I didn't make an assertion about Jesus saying those that didn't believe in Him were
condemned already, I gave this scripture (John 3:18), a quote from Jesus, but maybe
you don't think this was from part of Jesus' ministry, who knows unless you describe what
that means. So a direct quote from the Word is thought of by you as an assertion, I'd say
no wonder you cannot describe the process you go through to get what scriptures are
good and bad.
I wish I knew what you mean by "during His ministry" a great mystery at the moment.
The thing that Jesus stressed was that we were to love God and each other. I can provide
scripture for that, but I'm not sure if they would fit into your acceptable non-acceptable
lists.
You are big on accusing me of preaching 'dogma' I guess you think if you say that word
you are free and clear of not having to answer the points made and ignore all of the
points that do not agree with you, it is also used by a couple of others here too, but it is
nothing but a cheap shot tool in my opinion to escape a discussion point without having
to actually defend anything for or against.
John 3: 18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Originally posted by @kellyjayC'mon KJ. I provided the details in my previous post. Read back through it. Better yet, read back through our entire discussion on this thread. Read it as many times as it takes for you to be able to comprehend what's being said. Either you don't understand it or you're pretending not to.
Exactly how would you know if I'm pretend to do anything, you read minds, you have a
spiritual gift? Personally I think you just get a thought in your head and its true no matter
what when it comes to other posters. Repeatedly accusing someone of anything is not
proving anything, it just means you are not addressing discussion content and are relying
o ...[text shortened]... ot believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Try - really try - to be honest with yourself for once. You'll need to set your pride aside to be able to do that.
10 edits
C'mon jaywill.
I have started through your response. I'll let you know when you have answered me.
How can you so consistently get things so muddled up?
No answer yet. Staling for time.
Seriously, learn to read in context.
No answer yet. Still staling and evading.
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.
Still no answer. Still evasion, staling, sidestepping, with phony condescension
Me:
ThinkOfOne champions Luke 4:14-21 as such a universally positive proclamation.
ToO
Actually ThinkOfOne was pointing out the fact that in Luke 4:18-19 Jesus declared the purpose for which He was anointed,
Any answer to the question of why they wanted to KILL Him? No. Red herring instead. - "Actually, ... [some other stuff no pertaining to my question]"
i.e,, what makes Him the Christ.
The question is about why they wanted to kill Him after such an announcement.
I think the answer should be RIGHT THERE in the text.
Some nerve you have whinning about my reading comprehension.
Maybe ThinkOfOne is close to an answer now.
You believe that the purpose for which He was anointed was very different.
Does he address WHY they wanted to execute Him?
No.
A Master Evader.
If in Luke Jesus began His ministry by proclaiming He was the fulfillment of Isaiah's word about the year of Jubilee,
No answer STILL as to why they wanted to throw Him off the edge of the hill.
why did they get angry?...
This looks promising.
Me:
How come then they wanted to KILL Jesus [in] the same occasion afterwards?
ToO;
The fact is that they were angered by what Jesus had to say in the intervening verses: (Luke 4:23-27)
Better. At least now you attempt to address my question about the passage.
in response to them calling question to what He had to say (Luke 4:22b). Note that the initial reaction was positive (Luke 22a).
Kind of a let down ToO. You haven't answered yet. You've rightly referred to the intervening verses. And you rightly mention the response of the audience was at first positive.
"And all bore witness to Him and marveled at the words of grace proceeding out of His mouth, and the said, is not this Joseph's son?" (v.22)
Better, but not quite good enough. YOU DIDN'T YET ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Jesus compared Himself to a couple of Old Testament prophets, Elijah and Elisha. Though they came to the nation as great liberators, healers, and comforters, the nation hated them and opposed them tooth and nail.
Why? Because they weren't for God.
So Jesus comes with encouraging words about loosing captives and setting prisoners free and all that good humanistic stuff. Yet those not caring for God will be miffed all the same, seek to murder God's "anointed" and disbelieve His sent ones, and prefer their sins instead.
Bottom Line. Jesus may come to set free and release captives and heal. But if you hate God to begin with and wish He'd go away and leave you alone, there is no reason for you to rejoice.
You'll be busy plotting His destruction.
I give you a C for finally meandering around to a incomplete response. And some "context" expert, you ain't.
Originally posted by @sonshipThis was literally a lol. Thanks jaywill. A true classic.C'mon jaywill.
I have started through your response. I'll let you know when you have answered me.
How can you so consistently get things so muddled up?
No answer yet. Staling for time.
Seriously, learn to read in context.
No answer yet. Still staling and evading.
[quote]
Take a class or something. ...[text shortened]... I]finally[/i] meandering around to a incomplete response. And some "context" expert, you ain't.
1 edit
Originally posted by @thinkofoneClassic avoidance of context and effective reply on your part. Laugh harder - You're the one looking like a classic fool.
This was literally a lol. Thanks jaywill. A true classic.
Now see if you can answer the other question about the verses of Christ's deeds and teaching in the Gospels which are NOT "during His ministry."
You're going to give us five or six good examples - chapters and verses.
That is after you've had your inane giggle fit.
Originally posted by @sonshipThat is after you've had your inane giggle fit.
Classic avoidance of context and effective reply on your part. Laugh harder - You're the one looking like a classic fool.
Now see if you can answer the other question about the verses of Christ's deeds and teaching in the Gospels which are NOT "during His ministry."
You're going to give us five or six good examples - chapters and verses.
That is after you've had your inane giggle fit.
Thanks for allowing me to wait until my "inane giggle fit" is over . It may be a while.
3 edits
Originally posted by @thinkofoneMaybe. In that case you'll have a handy excuse.
[b]That is after you've had your inane giggle fit.
Thanks for allowing me to wait until my "inane giggle fit" is over . It may be a while.[/b]
Matthew - 28 chapters,
Mark - 16 chapters,
Luke - 24 chapters,
John - 21 chapters.
You should be able to list the chapters about Christ's life and teaching not "during His ministry" even while giggling.
How come you haven't done it yet ?
The Gospels speak much about the work and mission of Jesus. But they emphasize often more what kind of person He is.
Jesus shunned being put into a official position in which He could have worked all the more - setting people free, healing, recoverng sight in a official capacity as a king. But He shunned it because He was too pure, seeking nothing worldly for Himself.
"The people therefore, seeing the sign which He did, said, This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.
Then Jesus, knowing that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him King, withdrew again to the mountain Himself alone." (John 6:14,15)
What He did is important.
What He WAS is often more important.
Again, even when the Greeks sought Him to secure His blessings, He preferred to go into the ground and DIE that He might produce others like Himself.
"And there came some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the feast.
These then came to Phillip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him, saying, Sir, we wish to see Jesus.
Philip came and told Andrew, Andrew came, and Philip too and they told Jesus.
And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it abides alone, but if it dies it bears much fruit." (John 12:20-24)
How can we not then, also, point out the LARGER scope of what Jesus said about Himself. We should include that He fulfills Isaiah's prophecy about the liberation of the Year of Jubilee. But we cannot restrict His self disclosure to this alone.