Defending the Trinity

[Floyd]

From nothead to Wormwood:

You are focusing upon the words themselves when the attackers fell down. They ask him if he is Jesus. He said he was. So this alone may serve enough for them to FALL DOWN no matter if he is God or man annointed. Whether the words were "I am HE," or the words were "I AM," do you really think it makes any difference, since I showed you THE BEING and I AM are not the same words OR meaning?

Listen up, sir. I've had ELDERS rebuke me, expecting me to fall down by their so-called Holy Spirit annointing. Among pentecostals what I say is not that crazy after all.

From Floyd:

There are Pentecostals and Pentecostals!
The worst Groups teach much as per the Link!

Charismatic teaching:

The Events of Pentecost; What is the Truth? (Discussion Document).

I presume, because you and Purity seem to express the same definitions, that you are both of the extreme end of the Charismatic scale!
It is considered by serious Christians, that the extreme end is empowered by the enemy Satan! This also make sense of the aberrant comments from you both as regards our Lord, Christ Jesus; which, instead of embracing the Truth of His Deity; you wish to destroy, defame or otherwise reduce His standing, so clearly expressed in scripture?

How do you respond to this?
Floyd.

 

[nothead]

From nothead to Wormwood:

You are focusing upon the words themselves when the attackers fell down. They ask him if he is Jesus. He said he was. So this alone may serve enough for them to FALL DOWN no matter if he is God or man annointed. Whether the words were "I am HE," or the words were "I AM," do you really think it makes any difference, since I showed you THE BEING and I AM are not the same words OR meaning?

Listen up, sir. I've had ELDERS rebuke me, expecting me to fall down by their so-called Holy Spirit annointing. Among pentecostals what I say is not that crazy after all.

From Floyd:

There are Pentecostals and Pentecostals!
The worst Groups teach much as per the Link!

Charismatic teaching:

The Events of Pentecost; What is the Truth? (Discussion Document).

I presume, because you and Purity seem to express the same definitions, that you are both of the extreme end of the Charismatic scale!
It is considered by serious Christians, that the extreme end is empowered by the enemy Satan! This also make sense of the aberrant comments from you both as regards our Lord, Christ Jesus; which, instead of embracing the Truth of His Deity; you wish to destroy, defame or otherwise reduce His standing, so clearly expressed in scripture?

How do you respond to this?
Floyd.

Getting excited, sir? Calm down lettuce preruse the possibilities...

Pontification is in order: All pentecostals are prone to extremes, since that jumping, leaping and shouting, rolling in the aisles and speaking them strange noises is gonna make us SEEM DRUNK to the hoi polloi.

So then the answer is to make a RULE whereby no speaking stange noises, rolling, jumping other than in place or running is allowed. Smooth move, Rule Makers.

You just quenched the Spirit of God. See the problem, Floyd?

Okay then I just scanned with trepidations your articles. Seems like end times scenarios are argued, the dispensation of gifts, and the Pentecostal Awakening only to the Jews then, not the Gentiles now...

Whatever, I am not here to discuss pentecostal fine tuning. Paul already did this in Corinthians. Two things:

1) no one knows why the upper room and 5000 conversions were more powerful and accurately said (tongues to others of foreign descent). I believe since God wanted Christianity to be kick-started is all. No other reason needed.

2) As Angelina and others have said on the Strange Fire thread in Apologetics, the problem is not DISORDER of Spirit so much as NOT ENOUGH Holy Ghost among us, whether in congregation or in our homes. So then the problems we face AS charismatics are not exactly the same as in Corinthians.

So then when the True Spirit comes again in all power and emphasis, we will know and appreciate what is going on.

As it is we haggle amongst one another as we are wont to do. This forum is said place for just such a thing. When the Spirit comes then we will know what true unity is:

John 17

[SIZE=.75em]20 [/SIZE]Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
[SIZE=.75em]21 [/SIZE]That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
[SIZE=.75em]22 [/SIZE]And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
[SIZE=.75em]23 [/SIZE]I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

By the way, this ONE is the same ONE which John says Jesus says in Jn 10 "I and my Father are One." HEN for the Greek experts among us, as opposed to the EIS of Shema.

 

[Floyd]

From nothead:
Getting excited, sir? Calm down lettuce preruse the possibilities...

Pontification is in order: All pentecostals are prone to extremes, since that jumping, leaping and shouting, rolling in the aisles and speaking them strange noises is gonna make us SEEM DRUNK to the hoi polloi.

So then the answer is to make a RULE whereby no speaking stange noises, rolling, jumping other than in place or running is allowed. Smooth move, Rule Makers.

You just quenched the Spirit of God. See the problem, Floyd?

From Floyd:
You do not have the Holy Spirit; You have the "counterfeit" which is of the Enemy; Satan!!!

 

[nothead]

From nothead:
Getting excited, sir? Calm down lettuce preruse the possibilities...

Pontification is in order: All pentecostals are prone to extremes, since that jumping, leaping and shouting, rolling in the aisles and speaking them strange noises is gonna make us SEEM DRUNK to the hoi polloi.

So then the answer is to make a RULE whereby no speaking stange noises, rolling, jumping other than in place or running is allowed. Smooth move, Rule Makers.

You just quenched the Spirit of God. See the problem, Floyd?

From Floyd:
You do not have the Holy Spirit; You have the "counterfeit" which is of the Enemy; Satan!!!

Flattery will get you nowhere; I am too humble to be swayed "BY IT"; please stop or I might get a BIG HEAD!!!

 

[Wormwood]

I already said this, sir. Read up the tree. What is at stake is the 'ego eimi's' WITHOUT an explicit complement. Please stay on track.

Thanks for the help but Im on track. Ego eimi is used far more than seven times with a compliment in John's Gospel. You clearly found this statement online, but it was not saying what you are saying. There are seven declarations Jesus makes of himself in John's gospel. Ego eimi, however, is used more than 7 times with a compliment in John's Gospel. There are those of us who mindlessly grab stuff off the web, and those who research and study. I suggest you start doing the latter as it will hopefully pull you out of this theological nightmare that is leading you astray.

Listen up, sir. I've had ELDERS rebuke me, expecting me to fall down by their so-called Holy Spirit annointing. Among pentecostals what I say is not that crazy after all

Well this whole line of thinking seems...odd. I hope those elders were rebuking you over these heretical views of yours.

By your analogy the blind man in Chpt 9 says he is God. Smooth move, exegete. You might say the CONTEXT will change the meaning, but the TEXT and GRAMMAR is the same. Of course your context has Jesus as God presupposed. MINE does not since I investigated the issue.

Yes, you are quite the Google wiz. You and the Hanson trio make quite a theological group. Amazing how you and Google know so much more about Greek, theology and first century history than all these Christian scholars throughout history. Tis a shame. You can take a horse to water but you cant make em drink...as they say.

How can you say this when I just obliterated your argument? The first clause in the Greek has four words not two. The second text is HO OWN not EGO EIMI.

First clause has four, second text has two? Is that what you are saying? This is just a statement with four words (two of which are the same word in different tenses) Clearly your Google Unitarian Seminary is leading you astray.

There is no compliment here as the entire phrase is God's name: Ego eimi ho own. Jesus declares himself to be: Ego eimi. The focus is on the pre existence aspect of Jesus (before Abraham was) which is why Jesus uses the first part of God's name in reference to himself. Again, this was not lost on the Jews. They would not have tried to stone him for saying, "I am he." You need to give this crusade up. You make yourself look more ridiculous with each post as you continually revise, edit and seek new google tidbits to counter arguments you clearly do not understand.

 

[nothead]

See, nothead know how this sort of thing goes. You have a tight little comfortable clique here, and no one really makes waves, not even the naysayers like Purity.

He too nice, to be a nothead. Therefore he is pure as the driven snow. No not from a snow blower. Pristine, true and white.

Me however, I am a problem. No, I AM. A problem. To be verb figured absolutely without a complement. Sorry, for the sideswipe.

So tell me to take a break. Disabling my account gives me no consideration it will ever be ENABLED. I will comply. And come back to haunt you lucky girls and boys some more later. Selah.

Then you all can have your tea partays again. I wasn't really trying to break them up. See how I have stayed pretty much on this thread alone.

Shalom and good will. Even if it hurts.

Thanks for the help but Im on track. Ego eimi is used far more than seven times with a compliment in John's Gospel. You clearly found this statement online, but it was not saying what you are saying. There are seven declarations Jesus makes of himself in John's gospel. Ego eimi, however, is used more than 7 times with a compliment in John's Gospel. There are those of us who mindlessly grab stuff off the web, and those who research and study. I suggest you start doing the latter as it will hopefully pull you out of this theological nightmare that is leading you astray.

The whole idea that Jesus is saying "I AM" is without complement, even as to your declaration previously of the idea "I EXIST."

So then we are speaking of these 7 times. Not of ANY time Jesus says "I am ....X." WITH the complement. This is very basic language concept sir. I am surprised you seem to be confused over the issue as a whole.

IF he is referring to the NAME of God in Exodus 3 THEN he may not be referring to a statement of existence. Rather to the NAME "I AM."

And as such, EXISTING is not the name, but possibly a meaning of the name, not the same thing. Trins seem to get ETYMOLOGY and NAME mixed up alot. Why is that?

Well this whole line of thinking seems...odd. I hope those elders were rebuking you over these heretical views of yours.

Another story for another day. If you must know, they had a secret Shepherding Doctrine. I was supposed to know this by the same Holy Ghost they were trying to knock me down with. Since I DID NOT go down like a blubbering idiot, I was never allowed to make covenant to their Body. 'Cest la vie as they say in France. They like to say it a lot, too.

Yes, you are quite the Google wiz. You and the Hanson trio make quite a theological group. Amazing how you and Google know so much more about Greek, theology and first century history than all these Christian scholars throughout history. Tis a shame. You can take a horse to water but you cant make em drink...as they say.

If you don't disable me, I will educate you some more about your real history, sir. For instance did you know Columbus killed off like 50,000 Arowaks? And subjugated them with gold quotas? Tidbits of trivia, for the true.

First clause has four, second text has two? Is that what you are saying? This is just a statement with four words (two of which are the same word in different tenses) Clearly your Google Unitarian Seminary is leading you astray.

First clause has a complement, your Jn 8:58 has none, THAT is the difference. This translates from "I am the Being One," to NOT "I am." See it? It is right there in front of you.

There is no compliment here as the entire phrase is God's name: Ego eimi ho own. Jesus declares himself to be: Ego eimi. The focus is on the pre existence aspect of Jesus (before Abraham was) which is why Jesus uses the first part of God's name in reference to himself. Again, this was not lost on the Jews. They would not have tried to stone him for saying, "I am he." You need to give this crusade up. You make yourself look more ridiculous with each post as you continually revise, edit and seek new google tidbits to counter arguments you clearly do not understand.

The Hebrew is ANI HU. aeie ashr aeie. I will be what I will become. Not the right tense. And the ego eimi ho own in the Exodus passage can then be just as well ego eimi anything.

Since you took the to be verb and Isolated it.

Like I said this is extraction exegesis. No evidence at all God was known to Jews as "I am" at all. This was yes, what me and you were taught early in our Christian career. Trouble is, it is an urban myth.

Let me put the whole issue in a nutshell for you and I have to make some dinero, come back later.

God said I am God. Jesus said "I am the Messiah." BOTH have a to be verb inherent. But it itself means only that they are SOMETHING. God is God. Jesus announce rather "I am HE the Messiah." Not too hard to understand.

And true, sir. Thank you for considering my paradigm.

 

[Purity]

Purity,
Way to completely ignore the text itself that explicitly says, "For everything was created by Him...." It doesn't say, everything fall under his control, though not visibly. Gimme a break.

Wormwood,

It was created by him and through him and on behalf of him - you don't need a break you need to demonstrate Christ was literally present when God created the heavens and the earth.

Jesus is the first of Yahweh's spiritual creation as per Col 1:15 (Context is Christ being in the image not the substance - a firstborn!)

Now as a result of him being born of the Spirit which creation has been given life? Wormwood it must be the "New Creation: see 2Co 5:17; Gal 6:15; Eph 2:10; Eph 2:15; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10; Jam 1:18 for what other creation could be the subject of Colossians 1 - you are not suggesting its the material cosmos are you?

Col 1:17 All things spiritual now exist
Col 1:18 Now the head of the church - the firstborn form the dead is the basis of all things now existing!
Col 1:19 It please God to have His fullness dwell in his Son
Col 1:20 Peace "only" came through his sacrifice which now has reconciled "all" things unto himself.

The tense in these verses is not speaking about Gen 1:1 its talking about the spiritual creation which John speaks to in John 1:1.

Now, if you think Jesus pre-existed as a result of these passages you are grossly mistaken, yes he did! only in logos (divine thought) Yahweh's plan of redemption - You ask wormwood "Did Christ pre-exist his natural birth?" Purity answer: Only in the ideal and plan of God, not in tangible form: 1Pe 1:20; 2Ti 1:9-10; Mat 25:34.
Wormwood asks another good question "Did the "church" pre-exist also? No! of course not: see Rom 8:29.

You have to be kidding me. The context has to do with eating and drinking food offered to idols. Paul is saying that idols aren't real gods, it was Jesus who made heaven and earth. Perhaps the worst display if interpretation I have ever seen...and I have seen some doosies.

Yes you have the context right wormwood but you totally ignored 1 Cor 8:6 which is your quotation..."we by him" - how are we by him? Is the "we by him" not speaking to Col 1:18? The New Creation? Or, do you believe we pre-existed also?

And you are the one "saying gimme a break?"

We shouldn’t really be spending any time at all on I Corinthians 8:6 as it certainly does nothing to defend the trinity, wormwood the passage speaks for itself! Two persons are mentioned, but only one is identified as God. Could it possibly be easier?

If God is more than one person, this would have been the ideal time to mention it wouldn't you think? Yet the Father alone is identified as God, the Son is identified as “Lord Jesus Christ”, and the Holy Spirit is not mentioned at all! This is truly a strange statement for Paul to make if he believed in the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I Corinthians 8:6 is just another in the ever-growing list of verses Trinitarians cannot accept at face value, for the sheer simplicity of its language defies a Trinitarian interpretation. Hence the only option for Trinitarianism is to obscure Paul’s words and blur his terms of reference.

Does Paul draw upon the Shema in I Corinthians 8:6?

Yes, though he does not formally quote it.

But how does he define the “one God” of Israel? He defines the “one God” of Israel as the Father, exclusively, matching the consistent use of this term throughout the NT:

1.Mark 2:7, “who can forgive sins, but the one God?”
2.Mark 10:18, “there is none good but the one God”
3.Mark 12:29, “the Lord God our Lord is one”
4.Mark 12:32, “there is one and none other but him”
5.Luke 18:19, “there is none good but the one God”
6.Romans 3:30, “seeing it is the one God”
7.I Corinthians 8:4, “none other is God but one”
8.I Corinthians 8:6, “but to us there is one God the Father”
9.Galatians 3:20, “but God is one”
10.Ephesians 4:6, “one God and father of all”
11.I Timothy 2:5, “for there is one God”
12.James 2:19, “there is one God”

The Father is also distinguished by the terms “only God” and “only true God”:

1.John 5:44, “the only God”
2.John 17:3, “the only true God”
3.I Timothy 1:17, “to the only God”
4.Jude 25, “the only God our Saviour”

The evidence is mounting upon you and still we are yet to see a shred of evidence for Trinitarian theology.

No, firstborn of all creation and firstborn from the dead are separate concepts found independently in different areas of Scripture (which is why Paul separates them).
-Firstborn of all creation (Ps. 89:27; Rom. 8:29)
-Firstborn form the dead (Acts 26:23; 1 Cor. 15:20; Rev. 1:5)

Ok, you quote Psalm 89:27 which is speaking to the children in God's spiritual family; but Christ is first of them all, "the beginning of the (New) Creation of God" (Col 1:15-18; Rom 8:29; Heb 1:6; Heb 12:23; Rev 1:5).

Did you know Paul alludes to this Psalm 89:27 in 2 Cor 6:18?

I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters,' says the Lord Almighty." And likewise in Gal 3:29 : " If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Wormwood I am staggered you cannot reconcile Christ being the Firstborn of all creation with him being the firstborn from the dead! Staggered at your lack of spiritual insight.

Psalm 89:27 is all about God spiritual seed! And proves that Jesus was not the "firstborn" prior to the creation of Gen 1:1-31; Gen 2:1-25. But Rather, Jesus was not to be made firstborn until many years after this psalm was written. So, when Paul uses the term, the "firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15) is equivalent to "the firstborn from the dead" (Col 1:18); and the "creation" intended by Paul is the "New Creation" of men and women who believe in Christ (Eph 2:10; Col 3:9-10; Gal 6:15; 2Co 5:17; etc).

You will be forced even by your peers to submit to this truth concerning the context of Psalm 89:27; 2 Cor 6:18; Col 1:15,18 is in fact speaking about the New Creation.

Can you discern the difference between Matt 12:31,32 & Heb 10:29.

I appreciate you are seeking a straight answer but these things are not valued if we do not labour and seek after them in humility.

You have spoken the truth but you are yet to grasp it I feel.

Iforrest

Are you lurking in the background :)

How did you go with this?

Did you manage to work out why it was forgivable to speak against the Son of Man and not the Holy Spirit?

 

[lforrest]

Iforrest

Are you lurking in the background :)

How did you go with this?

Did you manage to work out why it was forgivable to speak against the Son of Man and not the Holy Spirit?

Observe my answer and a lesson, this is how to answer a question:

"Yes"

I am not a master of obfuscation, repeating lengthy arguments but saying very little, or quoting a single scripture out of context so that my meaning is hidden. Jesus Christ said let your yes be yes and your no be no. But you see me as your enemy and were unwilling to give a straight answer, and rightly so. Jesus faced his enemy with a question they were unwilling to answer. You have no such question that I am unwilling to answer, because the only defense against sound doctrine is falsehood.

The scriptures say a time is coming when people will no longer endure sound doctrine, that they would surround themselves with teachers that tell them what they want to hear. Look at your beliefs introspectively to see if they were forged with a selfish motive. By denying the pillar of the faith, a divine Jesus Christ, you are saying the church never had sound doctrine; then the scripture would be in error because you can't lose what you never had..

As my enemy I love you, and have hope in the power of God to open your eyes to the truth. I hope that you will abandon false doctrine and become a brother in my brother Jesus Christ. He is the Alpha and the Omega.

 

[Purity]

Observe my answer and a lesson, this is how to answer a question:

"Yes"

Good - well lets see it shall we?

I am not a master of obfuscation,

No only one was and he is the Master!

repeating lengthy arguments but saying very little, or quoting a single scripture out of context so that my meaning is hidden. Jesus Christ said let your yes be yes and your no be no.

Out of context.

But you see me as your enemy and were unwilling to give a straight answer, and rightly so.

Not an enemy only as far as 2 Tim 2:25.

Jesus faced his enemy with a question they were unwilling to answer. You have no such question that I am unwilling to answer, because the only defense against sound doctrine is falsehood.

This is a position of ignorance and pride - humility acknowledges there's always room to learn greater truth.

The scriptures say a time is coming when people will no longer endure sound doctrine, that they would surround themselves with teachers that tell them what they want to hear. Look at your beliefs introspectively to see if they were forged with a selfish motive. By denying the pillar of the faith, a divine Jesus Christ, you are saying the church never had sound doctrine; then the scripture would be in error because you can't lose what you never had..

As my enemy I love you, and have hope in the power of God to open your eyes to the truth. I hope that you will abandon false doctrine and become a brother in my brother Jesus Christ. He is the Alpha and the Omega.

Yes Jesus was the first (beginning) and the omega (end)

Unlike His Father who is beyond the alpha and omega.

I noticed in your post no answer was given to "Can you discern the difference between Matt 12:31,32 & Heb 10:29 "

I must say it was a disappointing spirit you returned with Iforrest.

 

[Wormwood]

Purity,

Your hermeneutics are so dysfunctional I don't even know how to carry on a conversation. Nodhead seemed to track at least what was being proposed and offered responses that were somewhat of an attempt to deal with the text. When I read your posts, I am truly at a loss for words. Your ideas seem to come literally out of nowhere. I'll have to bow out in the conversation between the two of us.

 

[Purity]

Purity,

Your hermeneutics are so dysfunctional I don't even know how to carry on a conversation. Nodhead seemed to track at least what was being proposed and offered responses that were somewhat of an attempt to deal with the text. When I read your posts, I am truly at a loss for words. Your ideas seem to come literally out of nowhere. I'll have to bow out in the conversation between the two of us.

Wormwood

I could see how you could get to this outcome. You have been struggling to deal with the Scriptures and your treatment of Phil 2 is where it began to unravel. Once you moved on to other passages to support your theological positions its became noticeable your understanding of Pauls arguments and the spiritual principles supporting them are simply not known by you. I was amazed you didn't understand the first and last Adam; I was amazed you have not acknowledged once the New Creation in Christ Jesus...I mean these are elementary teachings in anyone's hermeneutics but for some reason you have not wanted to go there.

Actually I have never meet a Trinitarian Christian who denies Jesus was the firstborn from the dead to mean the firstborn of a New Creation. This seriously flawed me!

Though we have disagreed I still desire His blessings to be upon you in all your learning.

Purity.

Wormwood,

Reading over your defence of Trinitarian theology I sense a vagueness in your language concerning Phil 2. Your treatment of morphē in Philippians 2 has not been impressive.

So, let’s be specific about what I am actually requesting in your defence:

1.Biblical proof that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God

2.Biblical proof that God consists of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons in one being (“commonly referred to as three hypostases in one ousia")

3.Biblical proof of the co-eternity, co-equality and consubstantiality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

The burden of evidence lies with you to prove it.

You have witnessed a stronger contextual argument for Phil 2 along with some encouraging exhortation to be of like mind with the Master - a servant. Please no speculation or inference only real evidence is admissible.

In the Masters service.
Purity

I guess we will not see the evidence after all.

 

[Floyd]

Purity: you did not answer the question put to you!
You demand direct answers to your questions; why don't you answer?
Do you speak against the Holy Spirit (the Third Person of the Godhead), in the same way you speak against Christ Jesus?


The remarkable statement by Jesus is quoted in Matthew 12:31-32 (KJV), with similar in Luke 12.
“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this Age, neither in the Age to come.”

Floyd.

 

[Purity]

Purity: you did not answer the question put to you!
You demand direct answers to your questions; why don't you answer?
Do you speak against the Holy Spirit (the Third Person of the Godhead), in the same way you speak against Christ Jesus?


The remarkable statement by Jesus is quoted in Matthew 12:31-32 (KJV), with similar in Luke 12.
“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this Age, neither in the Age to come.”

Floyd.

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/19981-defending-the-trinity/?p=224446

Answer above.

 

[Floyd]

So Purity, you refuse to answer yes or no!!
What are you afraid of?
Floyd.

 

[Purity]

So Purity, you refuse to answer yes or no!!
What are you afraid of?
Floyd.

Not only are you without understanding - but without humility...much to learn Floyd.

 

[Floyd]

Floyd, on 11 Apr 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

So Purity, you refuse to answer yes or no!!
What are you afraid of?
Floyd.

Not only are you without understanding - but without humility...much to learn Floyd.(Purity).

From Floyd.,
After your recent outpourings on this subject, humility is the last thing you can talk about! I am humble before my Lord; He is the only one worthy of such, certainly not you!
You still have not answered the question, why not?
I ask you again; do you speak against the Holy Spirit in the same you do against Christ Jesus; yes or no?
Floyd.

 

[nothead]

Floyd, on 11 Apr 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

Not only are you without understanding - but without humility...much to learn Floyd.(Purity).

From Floyd.,
After your recent outpourings on this subject, humility is the last thing you can talk about! I am humble before my Lord; He is the only one worthy of such, certainly not you!
You still have not answered the question, why not?
I ask you again; do you speak against the Holy Spirit in the same you do against Christ Jesus; yes or no?
Floyd.

Why you think he wants to answer a loaded question, sir?

It's sorta like having to answer this one: "Were you born retarded or did your mother drop you on your head?"

Wow Floyd how should I answer? If I WAS retarded how can I? And if me mammy dropped me on my head, I'm lucky to be alive at all, not necessarily able to flap my gums with erudite smackabililty...

 

[Floyd]

From nothead:
Floyd, on 11 Apr 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Floyd, on 11 Apr 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

Not only are you without understanding - but without humility...much to learn Floyd.(Purity).

From Floyd.,
After your recent outpourings on this subject, humility is the last thing you can talk about! I am humble before my Lord; He is the only one worthy of such, certainly not you!
You still have not answered the question, why not?
I ask you again; do you speak against the Holy Spirit in the same you do against Christ Jesus; yes or no?
Floyd.

Why you think he wants to answer a loaded question, sir?

From Floyd:
That is exactly the point;
nohead and Purity use this infantile technique ; and expect every body to jump and answer; but don't like the reciprocal?
We are all (the watchers), waiting for your lucid answers (nohead and Purity) to the question: do you speak against the Holy Spirit in the same way you speak against our Lord and Saviour, Christ Jesus: YES or NO??

The following Link is the writers opinion of your affiliation:
The father of Lies John 8:44
Don't let this heavy reading delay your answer to the above question!
But; I think we can all be sure that you will not answer, because you are not true adherents to the Statement of Faith of this Grouping!
However; let us see what "wisdom" you are able to impart, in an attempt to salvage your integrity re our Lord's Deity?
Floyd.

 

[nothead]

I just read Hammerstone's Excerpt of Recent So-Called Developments on this Thread

...and possibly on a few others; one guy is JW so I figure he must figure in too.

I do not really fit into his allowable niche for anti-posters, and Purity will not either. I don't know exactly what has changed, since Purity has been around for 600 plus posts.
But it is hard for me to believe Purity has an open mind ready for change. His view seems pretty established as far as I can tell.

For me it was 2 1/2 years ago a simple consideration of the Shema and it's own implications. If God is One, what does this mean. And when I figured the answer out for myself, all things became in the Bible, cohesive. I care little what Christianity has determined over the centuries. The first two generations are key, and this is because they were relatively ideal. Whether pentecostally considered, or as to what is true in gospel primally, secondarily and not true at all.

So then what this forum has to do is decide if they are going to allow open discussion pro and con no matter what, or if they are going to censure things when their own position looks less likely. For the Christ was tested in this very same way, and the debates did not go like men to men, rather from man annointed to men. But and yet he was annointed so much that his words are recorded to this day, first orally and now in writtern form.

I will tell you why things have developed to a head or crisis of sorts. Although I am an admitted smart-aleck, my arguments are pointed and clear. Reason and logic do matter in a common sense sort of way. This has always been true even when Jesus was speaking in parable or argument, the debates around the Temple or in synagogue.

A good argument has the order of God behind it. And common sense is the fulcrum by which we debate. Let the issues be, it is the epitome of free speech. I will not go away even if I am on the other side of your firewall. Tell me the conditions, keep me on one side or even one thread. But deny not the Truth, for it above all is the character and end consideration of the Living God of us. Amen.

 

[Floyd]

From nohead:

A good argument has the order of God behind it. And common sense is the fulcrum by which we debate. Let the issues be, it is the epitome of free speech. I will not go away even if I am on the other side of your firewall. Tell me the conditions, keep me on one side or even one thread. But deny not the Truth, for it above all is the character and end consideration of the Living God of us. Amen.

From Floyd:
If that was true, you would have no problem answering the below: as you will recall, Jesus always derided the insincere!


Why you think he wants to answer a loaded question, sir? (nohead)

From Floyd:
That is exactly the point;
nohead and Purity use this infantile technique ; and expect every body to jump and answer; but don't like the reciprocal?
We are all (the watchers), waiting for your lucid answers (nohead and Purity) to the question: do you speak against the Holy Spirit in the same way you speak against our Lord and Saviour, Christ Jesus: YES or NO??

The following Link is the writers opinion of your affiliation:
The father of Lies John 8:44
Don't let this heavy reading delay your answer to the above question!
But; I think we can all be sure that you will not answer, because you are not true adherents to the Statement of Faith of this Grouping!
However; let us see what "wisdom" you are able to impart, in an attempt to salvage your integrity re our Lord's Deity?
Floyd.