Originally posted by avalanchethecatyes , lots of nuts and tasty things in vegetarian haggis, you should try it, you'll never go back to that horrible ol sheeps stomach and intestines.
Oh dear, I hadn't realised quite how much of a nutter you are. Vegetarian haggis! Oh my sides.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHave you ever actually tried it? It's melt-in-the mouth deliciousness will completely wipe away your anti-offal prejudices. Best served with Drambuie gravy and buttered root-vegetable mash. Oh god it's only 11:30 and I'm already drooling...
I dont believe anyone can like haggis, even the thought of it is enough to make me have convulsions.
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatyes, on Burns night its a tradition in Scotland, its usually served among the peasantry with mashed potatoes and neeps (turnip)
Have you ever actually tried it? It's melt-in-the mouth deliciousness will completely wipe away your anti-offal prejudices. Best served with Drambuie gravy and buttered root-vegetable mash. Oh god it's only 11:30 and I'm already drooling...
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatwell, there is first time 🙂 I do like Scots dumpling, do you get that? its like sweet, brown in colour, with raisins in it and we fry it for breakfast. I have west Indian friends who brought me a traditional Jamaican dumpling which was essentially the same, but a little spicier. They made Johnny cakes alongside and we had it for breakfast.
This does not compute. I've never met anybody before who actually tried haggis and didn't like it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCloutie pudding you mean? It's ok, but I don't really go for sweet food. For breakfast I prefer porridge and a lorne sausage piece.
well, there is first time 🙂 I do like Scots dumpling, do you get that? its like sweet, brown in colour, with raisins in it and we fry it for breakfast. I have west Indian friends who brought me a traditional Jamaican dumpling which was essentially the same, but a little spicier. They made Johnny cakes alongside and we had it for breakfast.
7 edits
Its a shocking misuse of scripture and if he does not make a recantation I may be forced to hand him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh along with R J Hinds for eating meat.
You are neither able to exercise any Jehovah's Witness would-be apostolic authority to discipline me, but more importantly you cannot prove any "shocking misuse of scripture" by me.
Last of all ... "for eating MEAT ??"
So you boast here, not to some apostolic co-worker (as Paul mentioned to Timothy) but you boast in public to a skeptical critic of the Gospel that you may be forced to hand me over to Satan ?
Well Pope Robbie Corrobie, I don't know what occult voodoo you are deceived is Watchtower apostolic discipline that you can render a man washed in the blood of Jesus and indwelt with the Holy Spirit, a member of the Body of Christ and expounding rightly the word of God, but you go ahead and try.
And for my part I will announce to my prayer partners that someone in Jehovah's Witnesses thinks he's going to "turn me over to Satan". And that for eating meat. And we'll see how the Holy Spirit leads us to pray concerning this attack against the Body of Christ.
Just out of curiosity -
WHICH passage I expounded do you accuse me of "shocking misuse" ?
5 edits
Its a shocking misuse of scripture
So my reference and usage of Matt. 11:25 you judge as a shocking misuse of scripture to which I should recant ?
I see absolutely no "shocking misuse of scripture" by me there.
For one I made it clear to the readers that I was employing a "perhaps" that Jesus was answering His Father. Perhaps means I do not know for certain. That is no misuse.
Then perhaps that is why it says "At that time Jesus answered ..."
I am a very careful expounder of the Scriptures.
Now here's your shocking misuse of Scripture by the antichrist teaching organization - teaching that John 1:1 says the Word that was with God is not the Word the was God.
That is a shocking misuse of Scripture. And I don't even re-call any JW saying "perhaps" concerning that.
No recantation whatsoever from me.
Actually, I think the musing this way about that verse Matt. 11:25 is rather edifying.
You should recant that you teach that the Word was another god.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Q. Do you (Jehovah's ...[edit]... God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.
Interesting is that you have not mentioned that Christ stated that the Father is greater than he, that he can do nothing of his own initiative, strange for some who is allegedly almighty or that he subjects himself to God after his resurrection, why not?
Nothing interesing about it all, I am not so hung up on the one verse and I don't know. I can make an educated guess from what I understand of the reference and that is maybe Jesus was refering to the Father from the perspective as a man on earth before ascending? Maybe a good study topic though, and a good question.
I was wondering what your thoughts are on...
Revelation 22:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Who is speaking, and what is the inent?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipIt was an attempt at humour, you were being handed over to Satan for misusing scriptures, R J Hinds for eating meat. loosen up dude, you are way too uptight.Its a shocking misuse of scripture and if he does not make a recantation I may be forced to hand him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh along with R J Hinds for eating meat.
You are neither able to exercise any Jehovah's Witness would-be apostolic authority to discipline me, but more importantly you cannot prove any "shock of curiosity -
WHICH passage I expounded do you accuse me of "shocking misuse" ?
1 edit
Originally posted by kd2aczJesus was what? can you explain how you get from,Interesting is that you have not mentioned that Christ stated that the Father is greater than he, that he can do nothing of his own initiative, strange for some who is allegedly almighty or that he subjects himself to God after his resurrection, why not?
Nothing interesing about it all, I am not so hung up on the one verse and I don't know. I ...[text shortened]... e beginning and the end, the first and the last.[/i]
Who is speaking, and what is the inent?
(Matthew 4:9, 10) Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.
to maybe Jesus was refering to the Father from the perspective as a man on earth before ascending? and how that has any bearing on the subject of why Jesus is emphasising that the father must be worshipped exclusively.
as to the verse that you cite, yes i could answer it easily and have done so on these forums many times, but lets see you answer one or two questions first, shall we.
Originally posted by kd2aczAlpha and Omega: To whom does this title properly belong?Interesting is that you have not mentioned that Christ stated that the Father is greater than he, that he can do nothing of his own initiative, strange for some who is allegedly almighty or that he subjects himself to God after his resurrection, why not?
Nothing interesing about it all, I am not so hung up on the one verse and I don't know. I ...[text shortened]... e beginning and the end, the first and the last.[/i]
Who is speaking, and what is the inent?
(1) At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In verse 11 according to KJV, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in Revised standard, New English , JB, New Amplified Bible , Douy.
(2) Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in verse 8 is Jehovah, and so they restore the personal name of God there. See NW, 1984 Reference edition.
(3) Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Gal. 3:26; 4:6)
(4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it.
(5) At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son.