C'mon jaywill. You've once again lost context of our discussion. My post was in response to your making as if I haven't been clear on my position. My post was to prove that I have made it clear many a time. The quoted text was provided as an example.
Your response is ineffectual. It only begs the question. It digs in its heels and restates your attitude - to apply an arbitrary filter to the New Testament.
Before reading it we know you reject a large portion of the New Testament in a vague way.
After reading it we know you reject a large portion of the New Testament in a vague way.
And after you repost it with a boast of having done so before, guess what?
All we know on the Nth reading of it is that you reject a large portion of the New Testament in a vague way.
C'mon jaywill. You've once again lost context of our discussion. My post was in response to your making as if I haven't been clear on my position. My post was to prove that I have made it clear many a time. The quoted text was provided as an example.
Your response is ineffectual. It only begs the question. It digs in its heels and restates y ...[text shortened]... now on the Nth reading of it is that you reject a large portion of the New Testament in a vague way.
The sad thing is that you actually seem to believe that your responses make logical sense.
Like I said in the portion that you disingenuously omitted from your response:
To compound it, you've once again addressed each statement in the example as if it were said in a vacuum. As I've repeatedly pointed out to you, you can't draw reasonable conclusions using that methodology. You do it with what other posters write. You do it with scripture.
As I wrote earlier:
<<Unfortunately the vast majority of those rendered incapable of rationally discussing their "faith" believe themselves capable.>>
The sad thing is that you actually seem to believe that your responses make logical sense.
Oh, don't be so sad. You can't expect to buffalo everybody.
Like I said in the portion that you disingenuously omitted from your response:
There was no disingenuous omission.
That I targeted certain things to discuss, is typical of this medium of discussion.
The submitted paragraphs are postured by you as clearing up your position on the ministry of Jesus while He walked on the earth. As far as I can see, it just restates the concept.
When you come down to it "the ministry of Jesus while He was on earth" simply means " What I like in the New Testament."
There's nothing too profound about it other then that.
The sad thing is that you actually seem to believe that your responses make logical sense.
Oh, don't be so sad. You can't expect to buffalo everybody.
Like I said in the portion that you disingenuously omitted from your response:
There was no disingenuous omission.
That I targeted certain things to discuss, is typi ...[text shortened]... ns " What I like in the New Testament."
There's nothing too profound about it other then that.
C'mon jaywill. The point is that you keep missing the point and keep ignoring context - both of the immediate context as well as the discussion as a whole.
No doubt in your mind you don't. But the sad fact is that you do and are oblivious to this fact. Your pride blinds you.
It makes trying to have a rational discussion with you impossible.
@dj2beckersaid Wolfgang just called Hammond a liar and when asked if he in fact knows the reasons for Mandela’s imprisomment he doesn’t know as suspected.
Why would I need to know?
If somebody tells me Jesus was 6 inches high and I call them a liar.
I am supposed to know and prove what height Jesus was?
Jesus Christ Changed the World
20 Dec '18 22:26
Back to Top