Conditional salvation?

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 ]

 

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.

 

===

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?

 

===

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 ]