Conditional salvation?

[UZThD]

Your popeship:

Let me point out to you that you said: "The speech of the Lord Jesus and Paul would have offended YOU" ( "YOU" as in me...Me...ME).

To that, offending ME, I replied, "No, Jesus and Paul are inspired Scripture and so are not offensive ."

SO, you have removed my words completely out of their context and by that dastardly deed have misrepresented me.

Now, your popeship, if you cannot even understand me, how can you possibly understand Paul whose statements, I'll be happy to show your popeship, MUST be read in context.

Paul and I demand an apology your popeship!

UNQUOTE.

No, no, no Mr. , o follower of religious dung and serpentry.

Your REPLY was to MY STATEMENT, which concerned BIBLICAL AND SCRIPTURAL SPEECH WHICH IS OFFENSIVE as manifested by the Lord Jesus Christ AND Paul. You "slyly" left that OUT!

===
Your popeship:
What I said was that you are not Paul or Jesus and your words are not theirs. This so infuriated you--as it was, after all, an attack on your papacy--that you set out to misrepresent what I said.

You said of me " Do you not find the words of Jesus and Paul offensive." I said, "No they are not because they are Scripture." They are not offensive to me.

That I did NOT mean they are not offensive to some is clearly indicated by my providing the reason: They are Scripture. But not everyone agrees that they are Scripture. Therefore, I could NOT POSSIBLY be saying that the words of Jesus and Paul are offensive to no one because some deny their being Scripture.

That's called reading, inferential, contextual reading. I taught that for 35 years to LEARNING DISABLED JR ers.

===


Did you make the kids "practice" writing on the chalkboard? [/qb][/QUOTE]

===

Yes, I did. So, your popeship, since you just cannot learn the reading lesson, get at it with that chalk. Write 100 times,

"I am a naughty pope"

"I am a naughty pope"

"I am a naughty pope."

"I am a naught pope."

" I ...I..am not a pope."


[ May 13, 2005, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

[carlaimpinge]

Originally posted by UZThD:

Originally posted by carlaimpinge:


Why you poor deluded man. What makes you think that Titus OR I would waste fifteen seconds speaking about the articular infinitive? HE'S GOT OTHER THINGS TO DO! (Titus 1:9-13) That's your FOOLISHNESS, which you think is WISDOM IN THE SCRIPTURES. It's MENTAL DEMENTIA for “scholars”................So I got to have a Greek text to have Paul’s words?...What a ridiculous “belief” from an indescribable LINGUSITIC-BASED, UNSCRIPTURAL and UNSTABLE man... Brother, your ... stupidity has come out AGAIN. No wonder you can’t correct anyone, and are too scared to do so...... ........Brother, I'm not going to banter Greek with you, when I have a Bible in English that I can read and believe. our questions are found in the Book........... Not the Greek lexicons, dictionaries, or "a correct Greek text". ...
Again, you have demonstrated your IGNORANCE of the Bible ... He REVEALED himself TO ME in an ENGLISH BIBLE, not a "correct Greek text".... you're a bible disputer, who thinks WISDOM comes from your noggin, after you read a few lexicons and make comparisons...And such it is with "vain" men, who worship EDUCATION, SCHOLARSHIP, and BOOKS, while CRITICIZING the words of the Book....I don't have time for that NONSENSE.

===


Your Popeship:

Would you please explain why all of this excretion was aimed at me when I made reference to the articular infinitive in Phil 2:6, and to the helpfulness of Greek, and to the Greek text(s) unless you would also aim the same excretion at those who, as me, like and use Greek?

These do: McGee, Chafer, Heibert, Carson,Ware, Frame, Grudem, Pentecost, Ryrie,Welch,Erickson, and the editors of the Scofield Reference Bible.

All you need do, your popeship, is affirm that you think these are, like me, "demented, foolish, stupid,, scared, ignorant, Bible disputers, critics of the Word, vain, nonsensicle,unstable,unscriptural,holders of ridiculous beliefs,and deluded."

OR, if you do not think they are, then , explain why I am when I do what they do.

No, no, no, Mr. Evasion.

The POINT had to do with you STATING that Titus would be "concerned" about the articular infinitive AS IF he was LIKE YOU. (Like these great minds of today, who THINK GOD ONLY SPOKE through "original" writings.)

 

[carlaimpinge]

QUOTE by UZThD:

Your popeship:

Let me point out to you that you said: "The speech of the Lord Jesus and Paul would have offended YOU" ( "YOU" as in me...Me...ME).

To that, offending ME, I replied, "No, Jesus and Paul are inspired Scripture and so are not offensive ."

SO, you have removed my words completely out of their context and by that dastardly deed have misrepresented me.

Now, your popeship, if you cannot even understand me, how can you possibly understand Paul whose statements, I'll be happy to show your popeship, MUST be read in context.

Paul and I demand an apology your popeship!

UNQUOTE.

No, no, no Mr. , o follower of religious dung and serpentry.

Your REPLY was to MY STATEMENT, which concerned BIBLICAL AND SCRIPTURAL SPEECH WHICH IS OFFENSIVE as manifested by the Lord Jesus Christ AND Paul. You "slyly" left that OUT!

===
Your popeship:
What I said was that you are not Paul or Jesus and your words are not theirs. This so infuriated you--as it was, after all, an attack on your papacy--that you set out to misrepresent what I said.

You said of me " Do you not find the words of Jesus and Paul offensive." I said, "No they are not because they are Scripture." They are not offensive to me.

That I did NOT mean they are not offensive to some is clearly indicated by my providing the reason: They are Scripture. But not everyone agrees that they are Scripture. Therefore, I could NOT POSSIBLY be saying that the words of Jesus and Paul are offensive to no one because some deny their being Scripture.

That's called reading, inferential, contextual reading. I taught that for 35 years to LEARNING DISABLED JR ers.

===


Did you make the kids "practice" writing on the chalkboard? [/qb][/QUOTE]

===

Yes, I did. So, your popeship, since you just cannot learn the reading lesson, get at it with that chalk. Write 100 times,

"I am a naughty pope"

"I am a naughty pope"

"I am a naughty pope."

"I am a naught pope."

" I ...I..am not a pope."

UNQUOTE.


Sorry Mr. ship. That won't work either.

Your ORIGINAL CONCERN was my speech, which you called "add hominy". (Sorry, couldn't help myself.

)

Infuriated? Nah. Not one bit.

You didn't like it. Then I stated the BIBLICAL AND SCRIPTURAL speech bit.

HERE'S THE MISREPRESENTATION by your own self, LYING about what was said.
Quote:

You said of me " Do you not find the words of Jesus and Paul offensive." I said, "No they are not because they are Scripture." They are not offensive to me.

Unquote.

That is a PERVERSION of quotation.

I didn't ASK a question. I made a STATEMENT which concerned BIBLICAL AND SCRIPTURAL SPEECH, which was OFFENSIVE.

Reading, inferential, contextual reading?

(Sneaky Snake goes dancing, giggling and prancing!)

No writing for me, but same ole' dungslinging for you.

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by carlaimpinge:
, no, Mr. Evasion.

The POINT had to do with you STATING that Titus would be "concerned" about the articular infinitive AS IF he was LIKE YOU. (Like these great minds of today, who THINK GOD ONLY SPOKE through "original" writings.) [/QB]

===

Your Popeship:

I said that because Titus' language WAS Greek...(wasn't it Or, did he only read the KJV too?) ...and, since Titus read Greek and since Paul wrote Greek ,and since in writing Paul used an articular infinitive , instead of making it anarthrous, when defining the Person of Christ, IMO, Titus would note that.

Why would he not? Please tell me why he wouldn't note that!

I mean if you note so many forms of expression in the KJV and build doctrine on these, why wouldn't Titus do that with the Greek text?

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by carlaimpinge:
QUOTE by UZThD:

Your popeship:

Let me point out to you that you said: "The speech of the Lord Jesus and Paul would have offended YOU" ( "YOU" as in me...Me...ME).

To that, offending ME, I replied, "No, Jesus and Paul are inspired Scripture and so are not offensive ."

SO, you have removed my words completely out of their context and by that dastardly deed have misrepresented me.

Now, your popeship, if you cannot even understand me, how can you possibly understand Paul whose statements, I'll be happy to show your popeship, MUST be read in context.

Paul and I demand an apology your popeship!

UNQUOTE.

No, no, no Mr. , o follower of religious dung and serpentry.

Your REPLY was to MY STATEMENT, which concerned BIBLICAL AND SCRIPTURAL SPEECH WHICH IS OFFENSIVE as manifested by the Lord Jesus Christ AND Paul. You "slyly" left that OUT!

===
Your popeship:
What I said was that you are not Paul or Jesus and your words are not theirs. This so infuriated you--as it was, after all, an attack on your papacy--that you set out to misrepresent what I said.

You said of me " Do you not find the words of Jesus and Paul offensive." I said, "No they are not because they are Scripture." They are not offensive to me.

That I did NOT mean they are not offensive to some is clearly indicated by my providing the reason: They are Scripture. But not everyone agrees that they are Scripture. Therefore, I could NOT POSSIBLY be saying that the words of Jesus and Paul are offensive to no one because some deny their being Scripture.

That's called reading, inferential, contextual reading. I taught that for 35 years to LEARNING DISABLED JR ers.

===


Did you make the kids "practice" writing on the chalkboard?

===

Yes, I did. So, your popeship, since you just cannot learn the reading lesson, get at it with that chalk. Write 100 times,

"I am a naughty pope"

"I am a naughty pope"

"I am a naughty pope."

"I am a naught pope."

" I ...I..am not a pope."

UNQUOTE.


Sorry Mr. ship. That won't work either.

Your ORIGINAL CONCERN was my speech, which you called "add hominy". (Sorry, couldn't help myself.

)

Infuriated? Nah. Not one bit.

You didn't like it. Then I stated the BIBLICAL AND SCRIPTURAL speech bit.

HERE'S THE MISREPRESENTATION by your own self, LYING about what was said.
Quote:

You said of me " Do you not find the words of Jesus and Paul offensive." I said, "No they are not because they are Scripture." They are not offensive to me.

Unquote.

That is a PERVERSION of quotation.

I didn't ASK a question. I made a STATEMENT which concerned BIBLICAL AND SCRIPTURAL SPEECH, which was OFFENSIVE.

Reading, inferential, contextual reading?

(Sneaky Snake goes dancing, giggling and prancing!)

No writing for me, but same ole' dungslinging for you.

[/QB][/QUOTE]

==

Quite so, I was offended by your browbeating people with whom you disagree and your calling those folks heretics because they disagree with you ( yes, I know, you infer at times that if they disagree with you, then they disagree with God) .

So, you then asked about MY opinion of the words of C. and P. I responded that they were not offensive.


Now be clear for me and your readers : if someone thinks that Greek IS important to understand many passages , and they use Greek to do so , AND/or if someone directly says ,or by comment in exposition indirectly infers that the KJV errs at times in text or translation because it does not in those places match what was written in Greek,

your honest opinion of that one is....?

[ May 13, 2005, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]