03 Jan 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't even think there is such a swedish name: Ekland. I believe she was given the name Britt-Marie Eklund at birth. Wonder why it became Britt Ekland? Does anyone know?
It's a classic film.
Britt's sexy parts were done by a Glaswegian stripper.
03 Jan 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeI suppose you also believe that telerion is not really a member of the Lord's Army.
Doctor Scribbles,
Can I say you just found your new internet persona ..... a satanist, a devil worshipper ? .... now that would be cool, wouldn't it, and very controversial. I think it is safe to say Dear Doctor you have found a new vocation here at RHP ..... đ Congratulations !
03 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeJust like your rhetorical question asking me if I am a satanist.
Posing as being confused ..... and the usual innuendo.
And, when you claim that your question is a genuine one, I can say the same
thing! My question about your implict ambivalence about your own faith is
just as sincere!
And you'll think you're right, and I'll think I'm right.
Now here's the real question. When was the last time you took an intelligent
stand on a position? I can't even remember.
03 Jan 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeI thought my answer was obvious. But, for the slow readers like yourself, I'll
Nemesio: "And it's not 'my view!' "
Of course not, it's your encyclopedia's view .....
EDIT: Check out whether he directly answers this question for instance: "Do you believe that Jesus is only for the Jews?
spell it out:
I'm unsure whether Jesus, Himself, thought of His message as uniquely for the
Jews, but I doubt it. The Jewish-Christians thought this way, and they were His
closest followers, but they have a documented history of misreading Jesus (as is
evinced by the Gospels!). The St Paul and the Gentile-Christians certainly thought
that Jesus's message was universal, but the former clearly thought that the Parousia
was imminent, so there was a driving urgency about his wanting to spread the Good
News which tempers his motivations.
So, I think that anyone -- theist, satanist, antitheist, agnostic -- can read the Gospels
and be enriched by them; that is: Jesus's message is not peculiarly for Messianic
Jews.
Nemesio
03 Jan 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou are in the habit of spamming forums with Roman Catholic propaganda without
I'm not in the habit of answering rethorical questions or insinuating innuendo in the form of questions. You should study more carefully Nemesio's posts and see how many times Nemesio does not answer questions .... he is in the habit of repeating what he finds in his encyclopedia's. Apparently you are one of his admirers .....
commentary and trolling those posters whose intellectual freedoms intimidate you.
I can't remember your answering any question and supplying that answer with any
rational support in the 2+ years I've been reading this forum.
And now, you've become leader of the WolfPack. Only #1 is more insulting than you,
and at least he's amusing. You're just sad.
Nemesio
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by NemesioI think we can agree to disagree. đ
Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]Not according to Matt 7:8 as I have mentioned. Why would Jesus say that he is here for the world if this were true? Do you think that Jesus is only for the Jews?
You aren't reading what I wrote. I did not say 'Jesus is only for the Jews.' Please,
I cannot continue to respond with patience if you per ...[text shortened]... not, it's that they do.
Nemesio[/b]
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressOn what, precisely? On that the notion that one needs to study 1st-century Jewish
I think we can agree to disagree. đ
literature in order to understand the Bible?
Or on the Jewish reading of 'dogs' and 'swine' which is well documented in other,
contemporary Jewish accounts?
Nemesio