• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Triquestra - Holy or Unholy Trinity

B

Bro Tony

New Member
There were no slanderous remarks about sfiC?

I see them all through the thread. Let me show you a few.

From yourself: Though you post a site--those speaking on that site have no more credibility than you. Not only that they too hold to a false man-made doctrine of KJVO. You accused sfic of foolishness. You accuse him of false accusations, which btw means he is a liar in politically correct terms.

Stating sfiC has no credibility is a slanderous remark. (I noticed you went back after sfiC called you on it, that you deleted it. Fortunately, I keep windows open, so I was able to retrieve it. You also quoted sfiC and forgot to remove your own quote from within his quote, so it is still there.)

No--stating SFIC has no credibility is a statement based on his illogical and unbiblical assersion. It is not slander it is opinion.

Secondly, you have made a false claim as I have not deleted anything that I wrote to SFIC. I have never taken anything out of one of my posts after he responded. I stand by my statements and have not attempted to hide anything. Again, you accuse others of what you practice, as you have slandered me. Not to worry though I dont expect you to acknowledge your own short comings as you have proved you can't see them in yourself.

ScottJ accused sfiC of being double minded and of making ludicrous claims that discredit sfiC. That sfiC's posts are instruments of satan... those are slanderous remarks.

shall I go on?
Again, observation based on SFIC, double standards for others. He doesnt abide by the same standards for himself. Much like what you are doing.
epistomaniac accused sfiC of being double minded and hypocritical. those are slanderous remarks.

Ransom accused sfiC of siding with pagans.

There are many more slanderous remarks, but I am sure you will deny the fact they were made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...
I don't deny that the above statements were made, I do deny they are slanderous. And isnt it funny how you accused epistomanic of citing only part of SFIC comments and me of deleting and changing responses and you are doing the same thing... the word hypocrisy comes to mind.

Bro Tony
 
webdog

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by rbell:
speaking of symbols...is there an ancient symbol for "thread closure?"
:eek: :D
Click to expand...
Yes. It's a stick figure of a man pulling out his hair and beating his head against a wall.
 
B

Bro Tony

New Member
PS..sorry for the lack of understanding of how to put responses in the bold. After the last post I think I now know how.

:D

Bro Tony
 
S

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
ScottJ accused sfiC of being double minded and of making ludicrous claims that discredit sfiC. That sfiC's posts are instruments of satan... those are slanderous remarks.
Click to expand...
Nope. If you were being honest then you would have seen that I provided both proof and rationale for both statements. The comment about being used by Satan was in direct response to his use of that reasoning.

SFIC is being double-minded. Nothing slanderous about the truth. He applies one standard to things he likes and another to things he thinks impugns the NKJV. Do you have any doubt that if this symbol appeared on the KJV (as an image of the Sun did on early printings) SFIC would be defending it?
 
G

gtbuzzarp

New Member
Originally posted by rbell:
speaking of symbols...is there an ancient symbol for "thread closure?"
:eek: :D
Click to expand...
Does this work? :cool:

Crash.gif
 
D

Diggin in da Word

New Member
reading the OP, I see nowhere where sfiC was questioning what was written in the NKJV; only the symbol on the NKJV... as many have.

You guys automatically start your ranting and raving about him attacking the NKJV.

That is what this is about to you, not the fact that the symbol itself was not researched before being used, but the fact you believe he attacked the NKJV.

The question was brought up by another poster in another thread about the symbol and sfiC opened a post to show what the symbol was about.

When it is shown by sfiC the origins of the symbol, someone attacks him saying he got it off of a KJVO site, which was proven to be a false statement.

Then, since you could not refute that, many started hurling more false accusations at him, both unfounded and untrue.

The Bible says we are to let our light shine before men that they may see our good works and glorify the Father which is in heaven.

I see no light worth glorifying God in the railings I see from many in this thread.

Christian love does not mean hateful attacks on another.
 
R

Ransom

Active Member
Diggin said:

Ransom accused sfiC of siding with pagans.

Well, what do you call it when someone consistently cites pagan sources to respond to claims made by Bible-believing Christians? If that's not the very definition of "siding with," I don't know what is.

My remarks were not slanderous. They were simple statements of fact and I stand by them in their entirety.
 
D

Diggin in da Word

New Member
KJO is a christian woman.

Whether one agrees or not, Terry Watkins is a christian. Just because one believes different than him does not make him pagan.

What other sites did sfiC post?

Would it be right for me to say you or anyone else is pagan because I do not agree with some of the teachings you adhere to?

1 Corinthians 12:18-22 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
 
R

Ransom

Active Member
Would it be right for me to say you or anyone else is pagan

I didn't claim any Christian was pagan. Try to stay on point.
 
K

KeithS

New Member
Originally posted by Diggin in da Word:
That should read I see no site that sfiC posted that was pagan.
Click to expand...
[sneaks in]
Try the link in the first post started by the OP
[/sneaks out]
 
robycop3

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Once again...NO COMMENTS ABOUT THE CROSS ONCE BEING A PAGAN SYMBOL! !

Terry Watkins may be a Christian, but he advocates a false doctrine. (The KJVO myth) and has displayed a streak of ignorance in trying to defend it. Another of his more erudite arguments is.."The modern versions deny the Deity of Christ by calling Joseph His father in Luke 2:43." That fountain of knowledge didn't bother to read five verses farther in his KJV to see it doing the SAME THING! (What a maroon!...Bugs Bunny)

As for KJO...I shall assume she's a Christian also, but she quotes from RIPLINGER...and THAT throws up a big red flag immediately! And her explanation of the triquetra is far from complete.

This whole symbol thingie os horse-radish LEGALISM, and, like the pants-on-women thingie, has no place in Christendom. What symbols actually have power ober us? TRAFFIC SIGNALS! And they're hardly pagan. They, by law, have the same authority over Christian and pagan alike.

Once again...there are simply NO ancient symbols currently used that don't have any paganism in its history...AND THAT INCLUDED THE CROSS!
 
A

AntennaFarmer

Member
When I was just a wee lad my bubba and me would get in a fuss. Mama would make us sit side by side with our arms around one another. She wouldn't let us get up until we said "I'm sorry" and "I love you" to each other. I would rather have taken a whippin'.

I am afraid if we don't straighten out Jesus is going to do like Mama did.

A.F.
 
E

epistemaniac

New Member
Originally posted by AntennaFarmer:
When I was just a wee lad my bubba and me would get in a fuss. Mama would make us sit side by side with our arms around one another. She wouldn't let us get up until we said "I'm sorry" and "I love you" to each other. I would rather have taken a whippin'.

I am afraid if we don't straighten out Jesus is going to do like Mama did.

A.F.
Click to expand...
but it is out of love that I (and I think I could safely say “we”) are pointing out standing firm's hypocrisy (or inconsistency if you prefer) in regard to this issue, and to point out that now diggin da word has apparently joined him in supporting a losing cause.... and it is out of love that we must point out that this position is destructive to the liberty we have in Christ, as well as being obviously and patently inconsistent argumentation on their part, for they cannot consistently accept the cross as a valid Christian symbol if they reject the triquestra as an invalid Christian symbol. The 2 symbols must stand together, or fall together; for if one is denied due to it's pagan origins, then the cross manifestly has to be denied as well. Otherwise, the arguments against the triquestra are utterly arbitrary and carry no force.

And it is not only out of love to Christ and to them that their error has to be pointed out, it is out of love for our brothers and sisters in Christ that this activity and discussion is worth pursuing. For we do not want others to get drawn into the legalistic and inconsistent positions that both standingfirm and diggin da word have adopted.... that they seem to have no objection to accepting the cross -- despite it's pagan origins -- while rejecting the triquestra because of it's pagan origins.

It would be different if they would simply say that they personally cannot in good conscience accept or use the triquestra. If that was the case then fine, they should follow their conscience. But, they have insisted on laying their particular burden on others by accusing them/us of all sorts of demonic activity and calling into question our salvation, simply because we disagree with them about the use of a symbol!

So the discussion of the symbol itself has gone beyond that particular point to fighting against personal attacks on the spiritual lives of others that dare to disagree with them. So it is worthwhile to stand up to such legalistic bullying and insist that they have no right to lay their personal subjective burdens regarding this matter onto the shoulders of others.

For it has to be pointed out that neither standingfirm or diggin have been able to address this key issue, the acceptance of one symbol and the rejection of the other, and their silence on this point is deafening. They have not addressed it probably because they cannot address it. The inconsistency in their thought is just so obvious, they must know this to be true.

So I personally have to take thier inability or unwillingness to address this point as the loss of reasonableness for their position. So no matter what attempts are made to attempt to distract from this point.... any attempt to bring up other subjects that do everything but address this key point.... are all merely red herrings.

They simply have to honestly face up to the impossibility of their position.

Blessings,
Ken
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top