Colossians is a pervert.

[Granite]

Yes, we do love Sozo.



Tell you what, punk, if I ever have the pleasure of meeting you face to face, I will give you the thrashing of a lifetime. You are THE smarmiest, most arrogant poster at TOL and you take the most advantage of your anonymity. That makes you a coward.

I'm calling you out, boy.




Is this the only place you've got to be stupid or is stupidity one of lifes perpetual occurances for you?

:rotfl:

Yeeeeeah. You do that, Bill. You call me out. Make sure I leave town before sundown. Meet me at the OK Corral at high noon. Whatever flips your switch, bud. Question: considering we are all anonymous around here, how is it you're special and don't take advantage of your anonymity? This accusation strikes me as slightly asinine.

 

[Granite]

It pains me to see Granite and BillyBob, two men that I respect, at such odds over Sozo.
As far as internet anonimity, I'll fight any man who've I called out here in person.
As far as Jesus, I'd hang with him, I don't think he's the Son of God anymore than any of us are.
But he was willing to push his his point all the way and I respect that.
Had I lived in his time and known him I can see me hanging with him.
But as far as alot of people who claim to know him now, I'd say they're mostly punks who he'd beat down at first sight for bein punks in general and for bein idiots on his tab specificly.

Sorry, fool. Didn't want to cause ya pain, especially a fella from my birth state.

This post reminds me of a comment you made once--paraphrased, anyway--God's okay with me, it's his fan club that worries me.

 

[BillyBob]

:rotfl:

Yeeeeeah. You do that, Bill. You call me out. Make sure I leave town before sundown. Meet me at the OK Corral at high noon. Whatever flips your switch, bud.

Like I said, you wouldn't have the ballz to talk to me that way face to face.

Question: considering we are all anonymous around here, how is it you're special and don't take advantage of your anonymity? This accusation strikes me as slightly asinine.

I'm hardly anonymous.

 

[Granite]

Like I said, you wouldn't have the ballz to talk to me that way face to face.



I'm hardly anonymous.

Says you. This urinating contest can only go so far, Bill.

In lieu of anonymity how about providing a picture, actual name, and physical address?

 

[BillyBob]

Says you. This urinating contest can only go so far, Bill.

In lieu of anonymity how about providing a picture, actual name, and physical address?

All that information is available, scumbag.

 

[Granite]

:rotfl:

I knew there was a reason I got up this morning...:devil:

 

[BillyBob]

:rotfl:

I knew there was a reason I got up this morning...:devil:

To kiss allsmiles good-bye?

 

[Sozo]

As far as Jesus, I'd hang with him, I don't think he's the Son of God anymore than any of us are.
But he was willing to push his his point all the way and I respect that.
Had I lived in his time and known him I can see me hanging with him.

I can see you "hanging" with Him too! :thumb:


"And one of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!"

 

[Nineveh]

Shall a Christian be led by a man, or a spirit?

Neither. A Christian is lead by The Spirit.

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

 

[elohiym]

Mormons and JWs and other false groups believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Modalists/Sabellians believe the 3 are one.

Is the Holy Spirit personal or impersonal?

Is Jesus Almighty God? A lesser god? A mere man? An angel? We are sons of God.

Apart from the Trinity, Jesus is the crux of the matter. I cannot remember clearly who you say Jesus is (Son of God can be interpreted differently by different religions). I even started a thread many moons ago, because I could not understand your Christology.

Pending further information or recall...I remain confused as to your beliefs... :juggle:

You're an idiot, godrulz. We've been through this before, but your memory is failing in your old age.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.​

That's where you jump in and say, "Is Jesus Almighty God? A lesser god? A mere man? An angel? We are sons of God." Then Jesus rebukes you for being an idiot, and turns back to Peter and says...

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.​

Jesus is the Christ, the son of God. That is the ONLY acceptable answer.

Do us both a favor, godrulz, ignore my posts, and don't mention my name negatively in your posts trying to obtain favor with people who dislike me. It is wickedness, and you would have been cleansed from doing such things had you believed.

 

[godrulz]

I admit my memory is failing. I just turned 46 yesterday. There are dozens of people and thousands of posts here. I sometimes mix things up.

Peter understood his confession of Jesus being the Son of God as equality with the Father and an affirmation of His Deity (cf. Thomas Jn. 20:28). Many false religions use the phrase 'Son of God', but semantically twist it to mean a counterfeit Christ (2 Cor. 11:4). If someone asked me for clarification on my beliefs, I would be quick to share my understanding of the biblical title lest their be confusion. Why would you not simply share your understanding knowing "Son of God" can be understood in diametrically opposed ways? Other verses give Jesus different names and titles. A correct understanding of who He is affects our salvation and is essential truth. Why be evasive and vague?

I am not an idiot. I AM ignorant of your exact beliefs, in my mind, since I cannot articulate them to represent them fairly. I gave you opportunity to clarify, so I am not making you look bad. You are making yourself look bad. Am I to ignore everyone who does not clarify their beliefs or who disagree with me? You do not live up to this standard anymore than anyone does on these forums. Let's communicate, not obfuscate.

 

[elohiym]

Why be evasive and vague?

Why act wickedly and pretend that I am being evasive and vague?

Anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension skill can see I have answered you.

But since you want to continue, when I asked you to stop, it is obvious you need some instruction.

Why are you still a servant of sin, godrulz? You may think you know who Jesus is, but that's irrelevant because you are in bondage to sin.

After you explain to us why you refuse to repent, I might explain to you AGAIN how Jesus is the incarnation of God Almighty; but now, because you are a wicked servant, I feel we need to focus on the beam in your eye, rather than the splinter you perceive in my eye.

The alternative to this conversation is for you to ignore my posts and don't mention my name in a negative way when you attempt to gain favor with people who dislike me without a cause.

 

[godrulz]

"Jesus is the incarnation of the Almighty God". Can I assume that you mean that He is Almighty God in the flesh? It was not unreasonable and of vital importance to know what you meant by 'Son of God' since false groups redefine this title in an unbiblical, spiritually fatal way. Most reasonable Christians would be happy to simply affirm the Deity of Christ, the one we worship as God of gods (Gen. 1:1). "Son of God", by itself, is not understood to affirm this by millions of those caught in the kingdom of the cults. You did not answer my question at all by simply quoting a phrase that can be twisted to mean anything.

I rest my case.

Now, perhaps you can make a case for why I am in bondage to sin (you do not know me) despite trusting Jesus Christ as the God-Man, risen from the dead? I will not hesitate to try to give a reason for the hope that is within me. I will not try to confuse you and others, but will be transparent. I trust in the finished work of Christ and His great person. How does this keep me in bondage to sin? I also do not trust a counterfeit Christ like JWs and Mormons.

 

[Lighthouse]

Wow, feel the love. But in all seriousness, you guys crack me up. At least us nons can agree with eachother. You guys are hard pressed to even do that.

That's because people are united in lies, but the truth divides.

 

[elohiym]

"Jesus is the incarnation of the Almighty God". Can I assume that you mean that He is Almighty God in the flesh?

Yes!

Most reasonable Christians would be happy to simply affirm the Deity of Christ, the one we worship as God of gods (Gen. 1:1).

Most reasonable Christians would have accepted my answer, as Jesus accepted Peter's answer.

Now, perhaps you can make a case for why I am in bondage to sin.

Do you sin?

Jesus said, "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." (Jn. 8:34).

 

[godrulz]

Yes!

Most reasonable Christians would have accepted my answer, as Jesus accepted Peter's answer.

Do you sin?

Jesus said, "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." (Jn. 8:34).

Do you dispute that cults use the same biblical phrases, but infuse different meanings into them (semantics)?

Sinless perfection (Wesleyan, etc.) is heretical. I John, properly exegeted, shows that it is possible, but not necessary, for believers to sin. There is a difference (brought out by Greek grammar) between a habitual, continual lifestyle of bondage to sin (I Cor. 6:9-11) and an isolated lapse into sin. Anger can be a sin. Paul warned the Ephesian believers not to sin. There is provision if we sin (I Jn. 1:9). It also says that we are a liar if we (context=believers) say that we have no sin.

Do you believe the historical, traditional understanding of the Trinity (like Catholics believe)? This is not a trap, since I think it is not a salvific issue like the Deity of Christ.

 

[elohiym]

Do you dispute that cults use the same biblical phrases, but infuse different meanings into them (semantics)?

First, let me say, you are starting out deceptively. I answered your question. You rested your case.

I don't dispute that cults use the same biblical phrases. Now, keep your word and rest your case.

Sinless perfection (Wesleyan, etc.) is heretical.

I didn't ask you about sinless perfect. I asked you a simple question: Do you sin?

Why are you being evasive? It's a simple question. Don't be shy. We've all sinned.

I John, properly exegeted, shows that it is possible, but not necessary, for believers to sin.

So you agree that believers shouldn't sin, but they do. Is that what you do? You know you shouldn't sin, but you do anyway, right?

There is a difference (brought out by Greek grammar) between a habitual, continual lifestyle of bondage to sin (I Cor. 6:9-11) and an isolated lapse into sin.

Please elaborate.

Anger can be a sin.

Are little children sinning when they get angry?

Paul warned the Ephesian believers not to sin.

What do you think the consequence is if the Ephesians that Paul told to cease from sin kept on sinning?

There is provision if we sin (I Jn. 1:9).

Can you claim that provision every time you sin, even if you never stop sinning? Or do you eventually have to stop sinning?

It also says that we are a liar if we (context=believers) say that we have no sin.

If sin dwells in our flesh, but we don't act on our temptations wouldn't that address the verse about "having" sin?

Do you believe the historical, traditional understanding of the Trinity (like Catholics believe)? This is not a trap, since I think it is not a salvific issue like the Deity of Christ.

No. (Rest your case.)

 

[godrulz]

I didn't ask you about sinless perfect. I asked you a simple question: Do you sin?

So you agree that believers shouldn't sin, but they do. Is that what you do? You know you shouldn't sin, but you do anyway, right?


Please elaborate.



Can you claim that provision every time you sin, even if you never stop sinning? Or do you eventually have to stop sinning?

If sin dwells in our flesh, but we don't act on our temptations wouldn't that address the verse about "having" sin?

No. (Rest your case.)

Elaborate...I Cor. 6 talks about unbelievers not inheriting the kingdom of God due to habitual, ongoing, unrepented of sin. It does not mean that if a Christian has an affair or gets drunk once that they are going to hell. An ongoing lifestyle of sin shows that one has not repented and commited to following Christ.

The present, continuous, habitual Greek tense supports this concept. I John reminds believers that if they sin (an isolated lapse that is repented of is not the same as a godless lifestyle with no desire to repent), there is provision through repentance, confession, and renewed walking in the light as He is in the light.

I have sinned at various times in my 25 year walk with God.

Repentance involves a change of mind. It is more than remorse or confession. Someone who goes to a Catholic confessional to ease their conscience without any willingness to stop sinning with God's help is not meeting God's conditions and is presuming on His grace (Romans...we do not sin so grace may abound).

Sin is not a thing or substance that dwells in our flesh. Flesh is a metaphor for sin. Sin is volitional, a wrong moral choice, lawlessness. A wrong view of the nature of sin leads to sloppy exegesis and confusing conclusions.

A denial of the Trinity makes me suspect that your understanding of the Deity of Christ may be flawed. Is the Holy Spirit personal, distinct from the Father/Son, or an impersonal force? Is Jesus the Father (modalism/Sabellianism)?

Our doctrine of God is fundamental. Get this wrong, and you are likely to get other areas of theology wrong.

 

[elohiym]

Elaborate...I Cor. 6 talks about unbelievers not inheriting the kingdom of God due to habitual, ongoing, unrepented of sin. It does not mean that if a Christian has an affair or gets drunk once that they are going to hell.

You mean once in a while. I see, you think Chritsianity is a license to sin.

An ongoing lifestyle of sin shows that one has not repented and commited to following Christ.

I agree. Do you agree that a Christian must stop sinning or face a consequence of having not repented?

The present, continuous, habitual Greek tense supports this concept. I John reminds believers that if they sin (an isolated lapse that is repented of is not the same as a godless lifestyle with no desire to repent), there is provision through repentance, confession, and renewed walking in the light as He is in the light.

Do you agree that when you sin, you are of the devil, as John also states in his epistle? Also, what do you think John meant when he wrote, "We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." 1 John 5:18. How does that square with what you are claiming? :think:

I have sinned at various times in my 25 year walk with God.

Me too. I finally realized that I couldn't stop, and then I died. :dead:

Repentance involves a change of mind. It is more than remorse or confession.

We agree on that. What do you make of Paul's statement...

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. Romans 7:24,25​

While Paul's flesh serves the law of sin, whether that be by sinning or not, it seems like he's saying his mind always serves the law of God. Would you agree with that interpretation?

Someone who goes to a Catholic confessional to ease their conscience without any willingness to stop sinning with God's help is not meeting God's conditions and is presuming on His grace (Romans...we do not sin so grace may abound).

So you agree that the sinning must stop, or that there just be a desire for it to stop?

Sin is not a thing or substance that dwells in our flesh.

Romans 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Flesh is a metaphor for sin.

I thought it was a metaphor for the wages of sin--mortality. It seems that if sin dwells in flesh, according to Paul, that one cannot be the metaphor for the other, right?

Sin is volitional, a wrong moral choice, lawlessness.

My Old Testament is full of nonvolitional sins, and they had a sacrifice. Did you miss the sin offering after childbirth? The ritual uncleaness from menstruation? Sins of ignorance?

Those sins just happen, and that is what Paul was talking about, NOT volitional, wrongful moral choices.

A denial of the Trinity makes me suspect that your understanding of the Deity of Christ may be flawed. Is the Holy Spirit personal, distinct from the Father/Son, or an impersonal force? Is Jesus the Father (modalism/Sabellianism)?

Our doctrine of God is fundamental. Get this wrong, and you are likely to get other areas of theology wrong.

All I know is that God incarnated as man, and that man, Jesus, is the Christ and son of God. He the Father and the Holy spirit are one. If that's not good enough for you, too bad.

I find it offensive that you would attempt to force me to quantify God. You should read the LORD's speech to Job, and stop trying to explain what you cannot understand. We can say nothing more than what the Bible says about God, and I will say nothing more than that.

 

[godrulz]

Who said Christianity is a license to sin? Since you do not read posts accurately, I will not waste my time.

I see that you could use a closer look at I John and Romans.

Ritual uncleanness from menses is not one of the 10 commandments. Notice that things are different in the New Covenant, but that sin is sin in either covenant? I forgot you have certain legalisms that cloud your thinking.

Understanding God's self-revelation and worshipping in spirit and in truth should not be considered offensive. Ignorance is not bliss. We can know things about God's nature and character truthfully without having to explain it exhaustively. Laziness in theological thinking is not commended in Scripture.

The threads supposed to be about Colossians. How did you steal the limelight?