Originally posted by no1marauderRead this then:
Wow, you still can't read, idiot. Thirty five not 25, moron.
I didn't say I loved the Bible, but I have read it. That's obviously more than you can truthfully say.
"And the Pharisees came out and began to dispute with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven and tempting Him.
And He groaned deeply in His spirit and said, Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly I tell you, No sign shall be given to this generation.
And leaving them, He again got into a boat and went away to the other side." (Mark 8:11-13)
Why wasn't Christ's preoccupied here with providing public entertainment to the masses in this instance ? He refused to give them a sign from heaven.
I think you read the Bible with a twisted and warped understanding. Its really sad. There is no intention to "entertain" for "etertainment's" sake in any of the miracles of Christ.
Besides John calls the miracles "signs" which means acts with some symbolic teaching purpose. They were not magic tricks to entertain but "signs" to teaching something profound about Himself.
You might try adding some prayer and personal confession to your reading of the Bible for better results.
Maybe you meant that you studied the binding of your Bible, not the words contained within. Or maybe you're relying on Witness Lee heretical doctrines again.
Your STRONGEST case or two of heretical doctrines taught by Witness Lee ARE --- ????
Remember, don't save your strongest for latter. Start with your best example or two.
Originally posted by jaywillYou're the one jumping to another subject; read the title of the thread, nitwit.
Jump to another subject ???
Usual response. You are right on time. Nothing about a heresy yet, of course. Only we see you jump to the matter of law suits.
Or maybe you're just stalling for time until you can get a little help from someone who maybe does know something ???
Okay, do you intend to point out which teaching is a heresy. Or are yo ...[text shortened]... the stronger cases for latter. Start with you single STRONGEST case right up front and FIRST.
Originally posted by jaywillHe's a modalist, of course, but you should start another thread rather than pollute this one with Witness Lee BS.
[b]Maybe you meant that you studied the binding of your Bible, not the words contained within. Or maybe you're relying on Witness Lee heretical doctrines again.
Your STRONGEST case or two of heretical doctrines taught by Witness Lee ARE --- ????
Remember, don't save your strongest for latter. Start with your best example or two.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillIf you knew anything about the NT, you'd know that the Pharisees weren't the masses and that Jesus had nothing but scorn for them. Is it tooooooooooooooo much to ask that you be informed about some of the most obvious facts presented in the NT?
Read this then:
[b/]"And the Pharisees came out and began to dispute with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven and tempting Him.
And He groaned deeply in His spirit and said, Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly I tell you, No sign shall be given to this generation.
And leaving them, He again got into a boat and went away to the ome prayer and personal confession to your reading of the Bible for better results.
I put "interesting entertainment" in quotes for a reason. Of course their use was supposed to impart a deeper message (no one claimed otherwise) but it remains a "fact" (if you believe the NT) that Jesus very often performed miracles in public before the masses that you (or more likely Witness Lee) claim he disliked.
My results are fine, you're the one laboring under rather obvious misconceptions as regards a set of writings .
Originally posted by no1marauderYou dumb parrot.
He's a modalist, of course, but you should start another thread rather than pollute this one with Witness Lee BS.
You just read that somewhere and parroted it back with no research into the matter at all.
no1marauder,
You're not worth the time to talk to.
I wouldn't even wipe you off of the bottom of my shoes. I'd burn them first and flush the ashes down the toilet. And still it couldn't get as low as you are.
You're not worth the time, dumb parrot.
Modalism teaches that while the Father is in existence the Son is not. When the Son comes on the scene the Father is not here anymore, neither the Spirit. When the Holy Spirit is here the Son and the Father are not.
Modalism teaches that the Three of the Trinity cannot be in existence simultaneously and at the same time. Rather Modalism teaches that God existed in three modes which were mutually exclusive of one another.
The ignoramous who made this charge of Witness Lee probably never read anything on the subject of the Trinity by Witness Lee but jumped on the bandwagon of shortsighted critics who misunderstood some portions of ministry of Lee to accuse him of teaching Modalism.
Here's a rebuttal to the charge that Lee taught Modalism:
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/booklets/triune-belief-exp.html
which contains this quotation of Lee concerning the two aspects of the Trinity - one in three and three in one:
"The Triune God—Father, Son, and Spirit—has the aspect of being three-in-one and also the aspect of being one-in-three. As the three-in-one, He is “I”; as the one-in-three, He is “us.” From the aspect of the three-in-one, “the Word was God”; from the aspect of the one-in-three, “the Word was with God” (John 1:1). From the aspect of the three-in-one, “the Lord is the Spirit”; from the aspect of the one-in-three, it is “the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Cor. 3:17) From the aspect of the three-in-one, the Son and the Father are one (John 10:30; 14:7-11); from the aspect of the one-in-three, the Son is with the Father (John 1:1-2), the Son shares the glory with the Father (John 17:5), the Son is the beloved of the Father (John 17:24), the Son has become one with the Father (John 17:11, 21, 22), and the Son takes the same action with the Father (John 14:23).
And here is Lee's reply to one such criticism specifically but briefly outlining what he taught concerning the Triune God:
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/booklets/triune.html
Which contain these words:
We continue with Matthew 28:19, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Gk.). Is the name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit singular or plural? It is singular. It is three Persons with one name. It is three in one. It is difficult for us to explain adequately because we are short of utterance.
W. Griffith Thomas, who is famous for his exposition on Romans, in his book, The Principle of Theology, says, “The term, ‘Person’ is also sometimes objected to. Like all human language, it is liable to be accused of inadequacy and even positive error. It certainly must not be pressed too far or it will lead to tritheism…while we are compelled to use terms like ‘substance’ and ‘Person’, we are not to think of them as identical with what we understand as human substance and personality….The truth and experience of the Trinity is not dependent upon theological terminology.”
The proper presentation of the Trinity falls neither into the extreme of Modalism on one side nor Tritheism on the other side.
This article by R. Kangus, a co-worker of Witness Lee clearly explains that and refutes charges of Modalistc teachings from Lee, or of the opposite error on Tritheism.
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/booklets/modalism.html
Originally posted by jaywill"I wouldn't even wipe you off of the bottom of my shoes. I'd burn them first and flush the ashes down the toilet."
You dumb parrot.
You just read that somewhere and parroted it back with no research into the matter at all.
no1marauder,
You're not worth the time to talk to.
I wouldn't even wipe you off of the bottom of my shoes. I'd burn them first and flush the ashes down the toilet. And still it couldn't get as low as you are.
You're not worth the time, dumb parrot.
Yet another supposedly caring Christian reveals his true nature: uncaring, nasty and self-interested.
Originally posted by howardgeeChristians have tempers too. And sometimes we lose them.
"I wouldn't even wipe you off of the bottom of my shoes. I'd burn them first and flush the ashes down the toilet."
Yet another supposedly caring Christian reveals his true nature: uncaring, nasty and self-interested.
Then cowards on the fence like you can feel justified and point the finger and rationalize their unbelief. After all you're waiting around for the PERFECT disciple to appear before YOU believe right?
Well, for sure I'll have to stand before the Lord and account for what I said. That is true. I guess I'm not fully matured yet in spiritual life.
Wait around for the perfect Christian to come before you believe. We're all a work in progress. You may wait a long time. Even the Apostle Paul lost his temper calling the high priest a "white washed wall" and wishing the troublers of the Galatians would "cut themselves off".
Wait for the perfect Christian to come along before you believe the Gospel. That's a good stradegy. You know, just like you waited for the PERFECT chess player who never loses to come along before you took up chess.
Originally posted by jaywillPerhaps they just lie in wait an spew lies and insults at us and try to see if they can break us and then when they do they sit back and say what poor Christians we are for not turning the other cheek.
Christians have tempers too. And sometimes we lose them.
Then cowards on the fence like you can feel justified and point the finger and rationalize their unbelief. After all you're waiting around for the PERFECT disciple to appear before YOU believe right?
Well, for sure I'll have to stand before the Lord and account for what I said. Tha ed for the PERFECT chess player who never loses to come along before you took up chess.
Christ had a similar problem as they asked him difficult questions that they had rebuttals all prepared in advance, however, he had the wisdom to answer in such a way that they had no rebuttal for his answers. He knew they had no interest in the truth, rather, his main focus was answering to confound them in order to shut them up.
I think you will find that there are two types of skeptics who question you about your faith. There are those who simply want to tear to to ribbons and those who are seeking answers or to better understand your position.
Originally posted by whodeyYes, you clowns are sooooooooooooo Christ-like! Arrogant, blasphemous fools.
Perhaps they just lie in wait an spew lies and insults at us and try to see if they can break us and then when they do they sit back and say what poor Christians we are for not turning the other cheek.
Christ had a similar problem as they asked him difficult questions that they had rebuttals all prepared in advance, however, he had the wisdom to answer in ...[text shortened]... t to tear to to ribbons and those who are seeking answers or to better understand your position.
Jaywill you have now made ten posts in this thread. Not a single one has anything to do with the topic of this thread i.e. the tomb that the recent documentary speculated was Jesus'. You have been asked to start a different thread if you want to pursue your off-topic ranting about your heretical hero. Do so or don't; I don't care. But you are violating all forms of forum etiquette by deliberating and persistently attempting to hijack a thread.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're joking, right?
So what? His numbers are based on the chances of the names being found in a group of ten NAMES. A blank ossuary has no effect on that probability. Ditto for 35; which is Kloner's estimate for the number of person's remains that may have been in the tomb based on an average of 1.7 remains per ossuary in a typical tomb plus the evidence of scattered remain ...[text shortened]... ur significant names. So there's a difference of a factor of six from the other method.
What he's calculated (and what Dr. Feuerverger should've tried to calculate) is the a priori probability that the names in question will appear by chance in a group of n (whether n is 10 or 35) names. Your "rebuttal" is just silly -- clearly every person whose bones are found in the Talpiot tomb (ossuary or otherwise) has a name. Whether that name is actually inscribed somewhere is irrelevant for an a priori probability.
Better buy a high school probability textbook.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou're an idiot. Please try to actually respond to the points raised. The idea that you and your blog "expert" are trying to convey is moronic; that by mere coincidence the only ossuaries that had names put on them would happen to have Biblical significance. The fact that no other names are known cannot possibly be used to argue that the ones that are known are there by random chance.
You're joking, right?
What he's calculated (and what Dr. Feuerverger should've tried to calculate) is the a priori probability that the names in question will appear by chance in a group of n (whether n is 10 or 35) names. Your "rebuttal" is just silly -- clearly every person whose bones are found in the Talpiot tomb (ossuary or otherwise) h ...[text shortened]... evant for an a priori probability.
Better buy a high school probability textbook.
I doubt you ever went to high school; certainly your methods of argument show no evidence of post-grade school work.
I'm really tired of the type of brainless drivel you spew forth; using bloggers to try to refute arguments is a new low even for you.