Originally posted by @thinkofone

Not much time for me this morning.

Think about it jaywill.

What makes you think I have not?

I've been advocating for the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry for a very long time. Yet you term it "anti-christ".

Yes, sadly, I must be frank about it because you're stubborn and polemic about your Christology.

Like Thomas Jefferson who took a pair of scissors to the New Testament, you too have presented "while He walked the earth" as a kind of de-mythologized New Testament. I am certain you don't believe or teach the resurrection of Jesus.

Maybe in some slippery existential way you try to salvage something to misled people.

I was raised in the liberal branch of Presbyterianism and I can see you coming a mile away.

In the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry, He very specifically details the purpose for which He was annointed - in other words the purpose for which He is the Christ.

I have also found that quoting the Bible to you is useless.
You put more authority in your opinion.
I no longer think you actually have a high regard for any of the words of the Holy Bible as inspired by God.

Teaching "But it says this" to you is useless.
The book holds no authority. Your opinion you hold on higher authority.

Take what he very specifically details the purpose for which He says He is the Christ and explain exactly how advocating for the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry is " "instead of Christ" or even "against Christ" for that matter. In other word how exactly is that "antichrist"?

Like I said, I find quoting the Bible to you or trying to teach you what is written is useless. If I went into the New Testament to explain why I say it is an antichrist teaching and spirit that you present, it would mean nothing.

Your opinion is the POPE.
In denying some aspect of the full revelation of Christ, one is in principle preaching instead of Christ, another Christ.

Ie.
Christ is not the Word become flesh - an antichrist teaching.
Christ was not a man - an antichrist teaching.
Christ is not God - an antichrist teaching.
Christ did not die a redeeming death - an antichrist teaching.
Christ did not rise from the dead - an antichrist teaching.
Christ has no second coming - an antichrist teaching.
Christ does no live in the believers - an antichrist teaching.
Christ is not the Lord Spirit - an antichrist teaching.
Christ is not the eternal Father incarnate - an antichrist teaching.

If in ANY aspect of the full revelation of Christ you teach against, you present ANOTHER Jesus. You present a Jesus - INSTEAD of the Bible's Jesus.

You hone in on the word "antichrist" and perhaps feel insulted. But even I, even I could in principle present an incomplete picture of Jesus Christ while DENYING some aspect of Who He is. In principle that is a teaching of an antichrist Jesus Christ.

I reserve that unpleasant word depending on how INSISTENT the resistance is to the revelation of the New Testament. Some under appreciation of Christ I would not accuse of being an antichrist presentation.

But a stubborn, insistent, dogmatic, unrepentent presentation of the errors of denying what and who Christ is, calls for stronger language.

You are presenting a Gospel in the spirit of an antichrist.
Not just under appreciation, but negation of some aspect of the total revelation of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by @sonship
Not much time for me this morning.

Think about it jaywill.

What makes you think I have not?

I've been advocating for the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry for a very long time. Yet you term it "anti-christ".

Yes, sadly, I must be frank about it because you're stubborn and polemic about your Christology. ...[text shortened]... ot just under appreciation, but negation of some aspect of the total revelation of Jesus Christ.

Once again you've failed to understand the point.

So let me try it a different way. I'll approach this in a series of steps.

1) Please detail what you think is the purpose for which Jesus was annointed - in other words the purpose for which He is the Christ.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Romans1009 is an example of a Christian who hates truth.

Even after Rajk999 clearly refuted the accusations made of him by Romans1009, Romans1009 continues mischaracterizing what Rajk999 actually wrote. Evidently the truth of the matter has no significance for him. He believes it true, so the facts don't matter.

Romans1009, like many other Christi ...[text shortened]... belief", as the foundation. As such, it is the basis of how they perceive and process the world.

Salvation by faith alone is based on the Bible, the final authority on everything.

Your mischaracterizations of me and what I’ve said are hardly worth responding to as I suspect you’re just trolling. If you, or anyone else, wants to discuss substance, I’m happy to do it. But if you want to whizz in the pool, I’m not interested.

Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
So you are a cure for trolls like me? scofff!!

Did I call you a troll? I don’t think so.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Did I call you a troll? I don’t think so.

Yes, you did. Replying to a post of Karoly you said:

"Oh look. The trolls are ganging up on me. Isn’t that special."

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Don't see how he can do that sir when his very existence is built on a deception.

I see FMF has taught you how to whizz in the pool. Good for you! Keep poisoning our community with your substance-less insults and uninformed banter.

In other words....whizz on!

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Yes, you did. Replying to a post of Karoly you said:

"Oh look. The trolls are ganging up on me. Isn’t that special."

Correct. I was referring to the post in this thread which I incidentally wrote yesterday, before he decided to debase himself and join the troll brigade.

But I love how attentive you are to my posts. I’m gonna give you a lollipop!

Originally posted by @romans1009
Salvation by faith alone is based on the Bible, the final authority on everything.

Your mischaracterizations of me and what I’ve said are hardly worth responding to as I suspect you’re just trolling. If you, or anyone else, wants to discuss substance, I’m happy to do it. But if you want to whizz in the pool, I’m not interested.

Evidently Romans1009 continues to think that simply because he believes something, it is true.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Correct. I was referring to the post in this thread which I incidentally wrote yesterday, before he decided to debase himself and join the troll brigade.

But I love how attentive you are to my posts. I’m gonna give you a lollipop!

You have referred to him as a troll before that. However, due to throwing that label around in all directions I'm not surprised you lost track who you flung it at.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Evidently Romans1009 continues to think that simply because he believes something, it is true.

I’ve posted plenty of Biblical verses that support salvation by faith alone and have asked plenty of questions that expose the falsity of thinking good works are required for salvation.

A pity no one has chosen to respond.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
You have referred to him as a troll before that. However, due to throwing that label around in all directions I'm not surprised you lost track who you flung it at.

Whatever you say, amigo.

You’re wrong, but believe whatever you want.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Whatever you say, amigo.

You’re wrong, but believe whatever you want.

Wrong?! - Back on the 7th you said to him:

"Then you lit a pipe and went trolling on the Internet."


Like I said, you simply lost track of who you've called troll.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke to Romans1009
Like I said, you simply lost track of who you've called troll.

Who HASN'T he called a troll? Suzianne, dj2becker, SecondSon, Eladar? ...anyone else NOT been called a troll?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Wrong?! - Back on the 7th you said to him:

"Then you lit a pipe and went trolling on the Internet."


Like I said, you simply lost track of who you've called troll.

Well the blind hog found his acorn.

You’re right; I had forgotten about that post. But saying someone is trolling is not the same as calling them a troll. Nevertheless, I concede the point (if anyone knows about trolling, it’s you, and I’m certainly outmatched on that subject.)

I like how you’re keeping track of my posts so diligently. Maybe you’d like to respond to all the questions I asked and points I raised challenging the false doctrine that good works are required for salvation?

Originally posted by @fmf
Who HASN'T he called a troll? Suzianne, dj2becker, SecondSon, Eladar? ...anyone else NOT been called a troll?

Have I called you a troll? I know I’ve (correctly) identified you as a pool whizzer, but a troll? Your trolling is far too subtle and sophisticated to make you a troll. Others on here approach trolling with a sledgehammer; you tend to use a scalpel.