Originally posted by @fmfThe account in Luke is clear and doesn’t at all support what you wrote. Rather than admit this, you’re refusing to explain your point and instead offering up a lot of “dog ate my homework” mumbo jumbo and repeating the false accusation that I’m someone I’m not.
I don't need you to accept my deduction or my perspective which is based on what the Gospels say nor do I need you to concur with my conclusions about the theology that Christians base on it. I have explained what the story of the thief appears to be about, to my way of thinking. I am fine with you having a different perspective.
Psychologically speaking yo ...[text shortened]... cident. Besides, I have a strong suspicion that you and I discussed this already in August 2016.
Pretty sad, amigo
<Psychologically speaking you have much more invested in your certainty that you are right than what I have invested in the veracity of my conjecture about the same incident.>
Not at all true as there is plenty to support salvation by faith alone. The “thief on the cross” is just one of countless examples
Originally posted by @romans1009the way the four Gospels handle the thief incident is pretty clear to me too. If you don't like the way I share my perspectives, you should perhaps just ignore them, and try eliciting stuff from somebody else
The account in Luke is clear and doesn’t at all support what you wrote. Rather than admit this, you’re refusing to explain your point and instead offering up a lot of “dog ate my homework” mumbo jumbo and repeating the false accusation that I’m someone I’m not.
Originally posted by @fmfI’d be interested in your supporting what you previously wrote in light of the Gospel of Luke verses I posted.
the way the four Gospels handle the thief incident is pretty clear to me too. If you don't like the way I share my perspectives, you should perhaps just ignore them, and try eliciting stuff from somebody else
But you won’t because you can’t.
I think we both know and understand that.
But I’ll keep it on the QT.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Originally posted by @romans1009When the "plenty" wasn't getting any traction for you, with me at least, you plumped for the “thief on the cross” thing. So I gave you my perspective on that too. We can just agree to disagree.
Not at all true as there is plenty to support salvation by faith alone. The “thief on the cross” is just one of countless examples
Originally posted by @romans1009You are free to frame what I've said how you like.
I’d be interested in your supporting what you previously wrote in light of the Gospel of Luke verses I posted. But you won’t because you can’t.
Originally posted by @fmfI never shared the “plenty,” at least as far as verses from the Holy Scriptures. I just approached it from a secular and logical perspective.
When the "plenty" wasn't getting any traction for you, with me at least, you plumped for the “thief on the cross” thing. So I gave you my perspective on that too. We can just agree to disagree.
We can agree to disagree. What’s disappointing is your refusal to either acknowledge your error or explain what you wrote after I posted the Gospel of Luke verses. Instead you’re claiming the dog ate your homework.
Originally posted by @fmfNot how I would like because I’m actually disappointed in your non-response to the passage from the Gospel of Luke. But the truth is what it is.
You are free to frame what I've said how you like.
“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.“
(Hebrews 4:12)
Originally posted by @romans1009Oh well, so you're disappointed. It's fine by me if you are.
What’s disappointing is your refusal to either acknowledge your error or explain what you wrote after I posted the Gospel of Luke verses. Instead you’re claiming the dog ate your homework.
1 edit
Originally posted by @romans1009At the time I thought you did, but before I apologized for saying you did, I would first want to verify what you said is accurate, which I have not had time to do
Really not worth responding to posts that are not on substance, but to your earlier point, I’m not at all sure you did not accuse me of being Becker. At the time I thought you did, but before I apologized for saying you did, I would first want to verify what you said is accurate, which I have not had time to do
Were you planning on doing that anytime soon? You seem to have plenty of time to make numerous posts on this forum.
You know that you very well may have made a false accusation. Seems like a person of integrity would make clearing that up a a priority. Evidently that isn't you.
Originally posted by @romans1009Yes. You said you were disappointed in your previous post. I get what you mean.
Not how I would like because I’m actually disappointed in your non-response to the passage from the Gospel of Luke.
Originally posted by @romans1009Here’s a later post you apparently missed🙂
And here you are implying I’m another poster on here lol. You just can’t help yourself, but I appreciate your saving me the trouble and time of proving you wrong. Not that I was likely to bother, but it’s still nice to have it resolved.
No apology, amigo!
Originally posted by @romans1009So originally you wrote this....:
And here you are implying I’m another poster on here lol. You just can’t help yourself, but I appreciate your saving me the trouble and time of proving you wrong. Not that I was likely to bother, but it’s still nice to have it resolved.
No apology, amigo!
"At the time I thought you did, but before I apologized for saying you did, I would first want to verify what you said is accurate, which I have not had time to do"
making it sound as if you were going to do so if only you had the time.
Now you've admitted that you weren't likely to do so in the first place.
Not that I was likely to bother, but it’s still nice to have it resolved.
No apology, amigo!
No matter what you make of my discussion with FMF, the fact remains that you made a false accusation which apparently, you had no real intention of making right.
Originally posted by @thinkofoneHere’s the post I was referring to (on the previous page.) Kind of a waste of time to point it out, but I like to be thorough
Isn't there another poster who does the same?
ThinkOfOne: Isn't there another poster who does the same?But ThinkOfOne is right: there is another poster who does the same.
Originally posted by @romans1009 to ThinkOfOne
Here’s the post I was referring to (on the previous page.) Kind of a waste of time to point it out, but I like to be thorough