It is not an "attack" when you actually don't know what you are talking about.
Can you correct a child for saying 2 + 2 = 5 by just pointing out his error by saying, "no, 2 + 2 + 4" without judgment on the person's lack of knowledge by saying, you do not know what you are talking about?
Yes. That is what correction does. It exposes your lack of knowledge in that venue and, hopefully, produces a desire to study and learn before expressing monumentally uninformed and ignorant opinions.
You do seem to go on from that mistake that a child could make and say that everything the child had done like 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 2 = 3 is not validated now because of that one mistake of 2 + 2 + 5.
The shame is yours for trying to defend your mistake rather than accepting the correction. Uh, yes, I did correct you.
No. You did not. If you had, you would not bother to give the correction later. All you did was blow me away.
And, other than our exchanges on this forum you don't know me and know nothing at all about me or my love for the brethren.
I have seen some of your replies just by visiting your profile page. So you are right. By your replies of attacking the poster without just sticking to the topic by giving your correction to the topic, no one can see your love for the brethren.
And now you continue to confuse a word with a text. One more time: they are not the same thing.Yes. Your error is a strong indicator of your overall ignorance on the subject you are trying to claim expertise in.
Actually, you are the one that said I was claiming expertise in. You are the one that said I came across as someone that I knew what I was talking about. I never made such claims. You are the only one claiming to know what you are talking about. So what does that say about you?
My point was not about the Greek text but about pneuma in how it has a variety of definitions:
http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK41.htm#S4151
from pnew - pneo
4154; a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively, a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, demon, or (divine) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy Spirit:--ghost, life, spirit(-ual, -ually), mind. Compare yuch - psuche
5590.
And so the definition of pneuma can only be defined by how it is used in the verse.
Therefore since how it is used in the verse defines "pneuma", then obviously Biblical scholars and concordance falls short with "christos" as meaning anointed and Messiah when 1 John 2:22-23 has denying Jesus as the Christ as meaning the same thing as denying the Father at the same time. Is the Father the Anointed also? Who anointed the Father? Is the Father the Messiah also? Is the Father the King of kings also? No to all of those things. Therefore Christ can only be referring to deity. To deny Jesus is the Christ is to deny Jesus is God, and that is the only way they can deny the Father at the same time.
But you want to skip around the direction I was going with pneuma and say because I used the phrase "Greek text" instead of "Greek word", that invalidates the entire thread.
You do seem to go on from that mistake that a child could make and say that everything the child had done like 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 2 = 3 is not validated now because of that one mistake of 2 + 2 + 5.
Heaven forbid if you ever make a mistake as if that invalidates everything you shared in that thread.
1. You didn't upset me. 2. I am glad you have accepted the correction (although what you say above seems to indicate you are still laboring under the false idea that a word and a text are the same thing). 3. Correcting error is never needless. Error is anti-truth. And Christ is "the way, the truth, and the life." To have little regard for the truth is to have little regard for the Lord Jesus Christ.
And there you have it. More personal attack than ever before. A down right condemnation. That is needless. Did you see the topic in a question mark? Heaven forbid anyone asking a question in this forum that crosses your path.
You are the one making a big deal about my use of the term Greek text and Greek word. How is that voiding faith in Jesus Christ? How is that steering people from the truth in Jesus Christ?
To have no love for the little ones that Jesus said are those that have gone astray, is to do so unto Jesus, brother. You did that with your outright condemnation.
Matthew 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. 11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. 12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? 13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. 14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. 15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
You had asked earlier about proof of the people behind the Voice was using Anointed One as referring to Jesus as King only and I had quoted the preface twice to you to prove they were denying His deity when 1 John 2:22-23 was a warning against those who deny His deity.
You are the one not hearing me about how you are to address the topic and not the poster. You fail to see yourself as attacking the poster.
As if everybody you corrected includes a rant about how they know nothing about the matter. Did you debase the other poster in this thread when you had corrected him? No. You did not. All you did was correct him. Would you give him the same condemnation as you did me if he did not understand transliteration to be corrected? Think about it.
Since no one else is correcting you, the Lord will have to help me to withdraw from replying to you any more as you have still avoided the topic of this thread at my expense.
