ARCHIVE: Is this really demonic doctrine or what...

[Axacta]

>I could defeat those points.<

Then please do - don't leave me hanging...

 

[smilax]

Originally posted by Axacta
OK let me get this straight. You don't like my approach, but you agree with the Scripture I use as evidence and my conclusion.

Yep. I disagree with your methods, not your conclusion, (and I would never disagree with Scripture.)

Smilax I get the feeling from you that if I said "Jesus is God", you would immediately root through the Bible to post all of the verses that point out Jesus is a man - just to be contrary.

It's the "so easily disproved," the arrogance that your post hinted at, that warranted my post, not a conditioned response to contradict you.

 

[Axacta]

>Yep. I disagree with your methods<

What exactly does this mean - how many methods did I use, pray tell?

>and I would never disagree with Scripture<

Why would you make such a statement? You make it sound as if I accused you of not accepting Scripture, which I never did. Why do you feel the need to torque the discussion like this?

 

[smilax]

Originally posted by Axacta
What exactly does this mean - how many methods did I use, pray tell?

I see three.

1. Proof-texting without ample explanation.
2. Copying and pasting to cry for attention.
3. Inclusion of the phrase "so easily disproved."

Why would you make such a statement?

You don't like my approach, but you agree with the Scripture I use as evidence and my conclusion.

Let me break your statement down for you.

1. I don't like your approach.
2. I agree with the Scripture you use as evidence.
3. I agree with your conclusion.

So I agreed that I did not like your approach and that I agreed with your conclusion, and I emphasized that I would never disagree with Scripture. What is the problem?

You make it sound as if I accused you of not accepting Scripture, which I never did.

You're hearing things, then.

Why do you feel the need to torque the discussion like this?

I think you take personal offense too quickly.

 

[Axacta]

>Proof-texting without ample explanation.<

Couldn't you just ask for an explanation if you couldn't understand? But it seems to me you did understand - so what's the big deal?

>Copying and pasting to cry for attention.<

Cry for attention? More torquing. How about maybe I was just trying to get a response from me again.

>Inclusion of the phrase "so easily disproved."<

Sorry - I thought it was.

>You're hearing things, then.<

I did not question your acceptance of Scripture - if it is not a torque why would you say it?

 

[smilax]

Originally posted by Axacta
Couldn't you just ask for an explanation if you couldn't understand? But it seems to me you did understand - so what's the big deal?

Methodology, not conclusion.

Cry for attention? More torquing. How about maybe I was just trying to get a response from me again.

Same thing, different wording.

I did not question your acceptance of Scripture - if it is not a torque why would you say it?

I did not say you questioned it--I reaffirmed what you stated.

 

[Solly]

Alright you guys, this is a one fight thread, we'll have no brawling in the stalls. Back on topic please.

 

[Axacta]

Solly maybe you could ask me again to address my post - I wouldn't want to be seen as posting another "cry for attention".

 

[Solly]

a pleasure

me again, you got mail

night all, see you tomorrow.

 

[Axacta]

Thank you.

 

[me again]

Hee Haw

Hee Haw

Posted by Axacta
Solly maybe you could ask me again to address my post - I wouldn't want to be seen as posting another "cry for attention".

We're still waiting with baited breath for Jay Bartlett to respond to Dee Dee's question. :up:

But he won't answer because if he did, he would look like a jackass. :nono:

Not that he doesn't already. :up:

 

[Axacta]

>We're still waiting with baited breath for Jay Bartlett to respond to Dee Dee's question.<

This thread has been a challenge to you from the very first post.

 

[cirisme]

But he won't answer because if he did, he would look like a jackass.

Could we please watch our language?

 

[me again]

I noticed that Jay Bartlett skipped town when a little bit of scriptural heat was applied. Typical. :up:

And he claims to be a preacher. :nono:

 

[Brother Vinny]

Originally posted by Axacta
>We're still waiting with baited breath for Jay Bartlett to respond to Dee Dee's question.<

This thread has been a challenge to you from the very first post.

While it is true that this thread was intended as a challenge to me again, the terms of the challenge were so overblown that it is now Freak's credibility that is called into question rather than me again's theology. Freak should never have gone so far as to call me again's doctrine "demonic." Freak based his attack upon me again's doctrine upon faulty premises (for example, the premise that because Jesus is deity He could never act as messenger [angel] for the Father).

Now, Freak could have merely said, "me again is wrong about this, and I intend to show just where he is wrong." But no, Freak had to paint me again as a wolf in sheep's clothing, following the Texan's credo, "Anything worth doin' is worth overdoin'."

So now this thread has two objectives. Sure, it'd be nice for me again to present his argument for Michael as preincarnate Christ-- how about it, me again? But it's now also a quest to determine how far Freak is willing to bend the truth in order to vilify someone he doesn't like.

I want to know how far Freak will go.

It also looks like Dee dee wants to know.

Most importantly, me again wants to know. And me again deserves to know, as the victim of Freak's injustice.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

So now this thread has two objectives. Sure, it'd be nice for me again to present his argument for Michael as preincarnate Christ-- how about it, me again? But it's now also a quest to determine how far Freak is willing to bend the truth in order to vilify someone he doesn't like.

I want to know how far Freak will go.

It also looks like Dee dee wants to know.

Most importantly, me again wants to know. And me again deserves to know, as the victim of Freak's injustice.

I most certainly do. And ironically, though Freak is refusing to answer here.. he certainly has had time to go over to another thread and be a pesky little gnat and merely block-quote Jaltus and say, "Yeah, yeah, that's right Jaltus. I can't think of anything original to say, and she has got me pinned against the wall in another thread so I will come over here and claim that it is she who is always ducking the issues if it isn't about eschatology, even though this thread has oodles and oodles of substantive posts by her... yeah, yeah, and then maybe no one will notice that I cannot answer a simply question......"

Answer the question Freak.

 

[Freak]

Re: Hee Haw

Re: Hee Haw

Originally posted by me again
We're still waiting with baited breath for Jay Bartlett to respond to Dee Dee's question. :up:

But he won't answer because if he did, he would look like a jackass. :nono:

Not that he doesn't already. :up:

I have answered her question. She just doesn't like the answer. When the writers of Scriptures use Angel they mean Angel. They are not mentioning Jesus.

This is a side issue however.

Me Again, what do you believe about Michael (arch angel) and him being Christ?

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

I have answered her question. She just doesn't like the answer. When the writers of Scriptures use Angel they mean Angel. They are not mentioning Jesus.

That was not my question Freak... get some reading comprehension. I already knew you thought that, that is what prompted my question. For the umpteenth time.... and let me rephrase it slightly so it will be crystal clear.

If believing that Michael is an angelic name for Christ is a demonic doctrine (i.e. heretical), is believing that the Angel of the Lord was in fact the preincarnate Christ a demonic doctrinal heresy as well??

Answer the question Freak and stop dancing.

 

[Calvinist]

He can't answer the question, he never answers to biblical arguments. He is just a combination of whatever peacher tickles his ear and fantasies about casting out devils.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren


That was not my question Freak... get some reading comprehension. I already knew you thought that, that is what prompted my question. For the umpteenth time.... and let me rephrase it slightly so it will be crystal clear.

If believing that Michael is an angelic name for Christ is a demonic doctrine (i.e. heretical), is believing that the Angel of the Lord was in fact the preincarnate Christ a demonic doctrinal heresy as well??

Enough of the personal attacks upon me.

This is what I considered heretical, when Me Again stated:
Answer the question Freak and stop dancing.

I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father

He actually believes Michael (an angel) was the Lord Jesus. Re-read his statement. Wanna talk about someone having trouble with reading.....look in the mirror.