 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / May 2007Beating Kids With Ball Bats
The word of God does NOT say "Spare the rod and spoil the child." People say the word of God says that. But the word of God does NOT say spare the rod and spoil the child. Some say that the phrase is derived from Proverbs where it says: Pro 13:24 KJV He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. Proverbs also says: Pro 22:15 KJV Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. The "rod" is not a ball bat, belt, razor strap, extension cord, frying pan, or some other object such as a wooden soon used to strike a child with. The word "rod" represents "authority" as indicated by the context which includes the word "chasteneth" which means to give a child disciplined instruction. Aaron's rod represented the authority of God because Moses was God's prophet and Aaron was Moses' prophet. Moses spoke for God with the authority of God and Aaron spoke for Moses with the authority of God. Num 17:5-10 KJV 5 And it shall come to pass, that the man's rod, whom I shall choose, shall blossom: and I will make to cease from me the murmurings of the children of Israel, whereby they murmur against you. 6 And Moses spake unto the children of Israel, and every one of their princes gave him a rod apiece, for each prince one, according to their fathers' houses, even twelve rods: and the rod of Aaron was among their rods. 7 And Moses laid up the rods before the LORD in the tabernacle of witness. 8 And it came to pass, that on the morrow Moses went into the tabernacle of witness; and, behold, the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi was budded, and brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds. 9 And Moses brought out all the rods from before the LORD unto all the children of Israel: and they looked, and took every man his rod. 10 And the LORD said unto Moses, Bring Aaron's rod again before the testimony, to be kept for a token against the rebels; and thou shalt quite take away their murmurings from me, that they die not. Exo 7:1 KJV And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. The rod of God is the word of God and the rod of Aaron represented the authority of the word of God. A father who does not give his son the disciplined instruction contained in the word of God hateth his son. His son will not receive the benefits of the wisdom, knowledge, and understanding available from the word of God and will suffer consequences. The father who has a foolish child uses the word of God to drive the foolishness from the child. Look at the verse again. Pro 22:15 KJV Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. When foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; the father cannot drive it out of the child. The father could beat him with a ball bat day and night and get no where because a physical thing can not move a spiritual thing. It takes spirit to move spirit. As a father teaches (by word and deed) his child principles from the word of God; the word of God drives the foolishness from the child filling the void with wisdom, knowledge and understanding. We live in a secular world controlled by the god of this world who is Satan who has set up a world system designed to destroy us and our children. When I studied child development in college I learned the vain empty philosophies of Piaget, Erickson and other workers of iniquity who promulgated the doctrines of devils. Their teachings influenced many who were brain dirtied with their doctrines and rose to positions in the world system where they could influence the making of laws that under the guise of protecting children actually lead to the destruction of children. Were all of the philosophies of the "experts" vain? No. They had to mix evil with good in order to fool people. This morning I was talking to a lady who has to appear in court as a witness in a case where the government stepped in and took a child away from her father because the child alleged that the father struck her. Three witnesses say that the child had a mark on her face before the father came home from work. When the father took the child home she called the police and the girl told the police that the father had struck her leaving a mark on her face. I know the father and the girl who is thirteen. The father is a self employed mechanic who tows and repairs cars for a living. He is not well educated and since the death of his wife has had trouble raising his daughter whom he allows to much freedom. The child was taken from the father last year and bounced from home to home where nobody wants her because she is narcissistic, mean spirited and violent. Of course, social services has her receiving counseling which has done her no good at all. She is currently staying with my friend who is a widow with three teenage children of her own. The girl has caused confusion and ruined the home life of everyone concerned. She is kicked out of school so much that she has spent very little time in school. While the kids are at school she finds their "stuff" and uses it as her own and then throws a tantrum when the owner wants it back. The family has to hide the telephone, the computer mouse, the wire connecting the computer to the Internet, etc. If not the girl will spend all of her time on the Internet and on the telephone - no telling who she is communicating with. Even social services and the contractors social services has hired to handle her can do nothing with her. She cannot even be allowed to visit her grandmother because she will leave the house and go to where prostitutes and drugs are used. At thirteen she makes life miserable for everyone that she comes into contact with. When the mother died, the father who had depended on the mother to raise the child allowed her to do what she wanted even reprimanding the child's grandmother and other care givers who tried to correct her. She became a wild child because the father spared his rod and in doing so brought about the evil that has come to the daughter. The father does go to church once in a while but does not know the scriptures or their power. He also lacks the reading skills necessary to do much reading of the Bible or any other book that could give him some pointers. To make matters even worse, the father's house and all of his property burned down and his losses were not insured. He doesn't make enough money to pay rent and utilities and care for his daughter. Yet, this week he is in court trying to regain custody of his daughter. It's not that the man does not love his daughter. The problem is that he does not know how to provide for and care for his daughter. Being poor in North Carolina puts a family at the mercy of the government and its hired henchmen. When the child called the police, social services was contacted by the police who in-turn farmed out the responsibility for investigating the circumstances to one of its contractors whose primary purpose for existence is to make money. The contractor's employees who work in two's (more money for the contractor) are obligated to make as many "interventions" as possible since each visit earns the contractor money. A government social worker would not be motivated by the make as many visits as possible mentality that governs the contractors way of thinking. Of course the child is also farmed out to mental health contractors who need to work count to make money. The child is a money maker for contractors; nothing more. Those who would do good for the child are not permitted to do good without fear of a contractor submitting reports against them. So, the girl has become a wild child that nobody wants and that nobody can help. If her father does regain custody this week, they will have to live with someone else and their problems will cause problems for others in the household. If he does not regain custody, contractors who work for mental health and social services will continue to make more and more money off the child - but that's not considered child abuse. Child abuse is not when a child's life is ruined for the sake of money (so long as it is an approved contractor). Child abuse is when a parent tries to do what is right and best for his child. The father and child are living with the family that has custody of the child until the father can get assistance from the state. The family they are staying with are Christians and some progress is being made with the girl because the mother and her three teenage children are able to get "through" to the girl to a limited degree. The father has become a little more tolerant of people telling his daughter what to do; especially when it is the teenage girls that have befriended her. So there is hope for the father and the girl. But that hope does not come from the money hungry contractors or the state employees who have messed things up for them. Their hope comes through the love of God that is being manifested towards to the two through four of God's children who know and speak the truth of the word of God in love. > The word of God does NOT say "Spare the rod and spoil the child." > People say the word of God says that. But the word of God does NOT [quoted text clipped - 172 lines] > God's children who know and speak the truth of the word of God in > love. I didn't know they were giving out soap boxes on usenet. Thanks for enlightening us all, Bob, on ...what was your point anyway? >> The word of God does NOT say "Spare the rod and spoil the child." >> People say the word of God says that. But the word of God does NOT [quoted text clipped - 175 lines] >I didn't know they were giving out soap boxes on usenet. >Thanks for enlightening us all, Bob, on ...what was your point anyway? Dragon Girl, You are welcome. You've been around long enough to know that the discussion groups are soap boxes (and soap operas, too). The first point is if you are going to be religious; make sure your religious beliefs are right. Else, you will end up beating your kids and denying them blood transfusions or surgery and not teaching them what they need to know to live life. The second point is that while it may be necessary to have the Government step in to protect a child from a parent the Government should not delegate their authority to money grubbing contractors. Last night on the national news it was reported that a parent nuked his baby in a microwave. In the local news a man was charged with child abuse keeping his wife and kids captive in a filthy house. The mother was kept on drugs and the children were so poorly cared for that they had developed their own language. The grandmother had tried to intervene but social services apparently did not do their job. Then there was the mother charged with microwaving her baby. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1834355/posts http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-051607-jmn-dss_captive.7624e88c.html http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Dec07/0,4670,BabyDeathMicrowave,00.html Maybe someone on another soap box has some better solutions. From my perspective the solution for "Christian" parents is to learn to do things God's way. Unbelievers (and carnal Christians) are going to do what they do until Child Protective Services Employees become gun carrying law enforcement officers. <snip> > Maybe someone on another soap box has some better solutions. From my > perspective the solution for "Christian" parents is to learn to do > things God's way. Unbelievers (and carnal Christians) are going to do > what they do until Child Protective Services Employees become gun > carrying law enforcement officers. Absolutely. Genesis gives us a lot of rules. 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. So if a child dies either it did not honor it's parents or this god lies. 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. It's OK to seel your kids but daughteres have less value. 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. 22:29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Naturally the salad bar christian will have explanations as to why this *really* does not apply to the christian, but it is from the same place the ten commanments come from. ><snip> >> Maybe someone on another soap box has some better solutions. From my [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >*really* does not apply to the christian, but it is from the same place the >ten commanments come from. Mikey, The problem is that the entire Old Covenant was written to Israel; not the church of God which lives under the New Covenant. The ten commandments were addressed to Israel beause they are in the Old Covenant. The Old Covenanat Laws were written to carnal man. The New Covenant was written to spiritual man. Can you dudes take your bible thumping arguments elsewhere? This is not the place, TY firemonkey > On Sat, 19 May 2007 05:08:30 GMT, "Mike Painter" > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >Can you dudes take your bible thumping arguments elsewhere? >This is not the place, TY > firemonkey Firemonkey, It is on topic in all of the groups in the header. BB >> On Sat, 19 May 2007 05:08:30 GMT, "Mike Painter" >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - >> Can you dudes take your bible thumping arguments elsewhere? >> This is not the place, TY [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > BB Which shows you who did the crossposting. I would normally snip groups but it is important for people to seed how BBrain and the other fundies here think. All of them claim to be right, none of them agree with each other and all use the same tool as their weapon. If they had their way this country would make Iraq's religious wars look like a play yard. They did it in the past. These people do more for atheism than we could ever do. >>> Can you dudes take your bible thumping arguments elsewhere? >>> This is not the place, TY [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >They did it in the past. >These people do more for atheism than we could ever do. Which shows that you can not read headers. All of the groups are on topic for the post. Here, read the address line "free.christians,alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.parenting.spanking" > >>> Can you dudes take your bible thumping arguments elsewhere? > >>> This is not the place, TY [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > topic for the post. Here, read the address line > "free.christians,alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.parenting.spanking" Bible Bob, Could you do me a little favor? Please reread what Mike wrote and explain to me why you think that it shows he cannot read headers. If upon, rereading you decide that it does not show that, please feel free to respond to his message again, this time with a post that makes a little more sense. Thanks.  SignatureGreg ---- http://www.spencerbooksellers.com greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com >> >>> Can you dudes take your bible thumping arguments elsewhere? >> >>> This is not the place, TY [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >Thanks. Gregory, The original post was on topic in the groups I posted to (in my opinion). It became a "religious" discussion in subsequent posts. So, if one is to consider the responses to be off topic; then it was I who was wrong. "in my opinion" This sums up BB. Never mind what other say or think. >> <snip> >>> Maybe someone on another soap box has some better solutions. From [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Covenant. The Old Covenanat Laws were written to carnal man. The New > Covenant was written to spiritual man. Right on cue. Ignore what Christ said about it, and only quote OT when it suits you. Christ said *specifically* that the law was still in effect. Where specifically did he enumarate the parts you can ignore? > Right on cue. Ignore what Christ said about it, and only quote OT when it > suits you. Personally, I've never understood those who claim to be Christians, yet feel they have a God-given right and reason to ignore the OT; as if God had changed His mind. BB falls dangerously close into the category of heretic with this and other teachings and beliefs he touts. (Maybe it's not completely his fault; he is a former cultist, after all - and then, maybe not so former) Nonetheless, his "teachings" are so far off the mark at times they would be laughable if they weren't so tragic. That, along with his megalomaniacal and sadistic need to control and convince others that they can't possibly know the Bible as well as he (because he holds the secrets to decoding it), makes his words and behaviors here decidedly anti-Christ. He does NOT represent Christianity and certainly not Christ, no matter how much he likes to label himself a reconciler and Christian Ambassador. > Christ said *specifically* that the law was still in effect. Where > specifically did he enumarate the parts you can ignore? I'd like to see that, too. On 19 May 2007 18:54:04 -0700, "<~(Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>" <ontheskagit@verizon.net> wrote: >> Right on cue. Ignore what Christ said about it, and only quote OT when it >> suits you. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >"teachings" are so far off the mark at times they would be laughable >if they weren't so tragic. You could understand spiritual matters if you would allow the spirit of God a little breathing room in your life. Of course it doesn't hurt to be able to do something called reading. The you would be able to understand what words like "Hear O Israel" or maybe the really hard to understand "The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi." (Mal 1:1). You might then learn how to understand the wors of Jesus as in the cae where He said "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. " (Mat 15:24). You claim to be a Christian; why don't you act like one? Your lust for women and the spiritual influences that cause that lust cause you to rationalize too much. Let's just look at the silliness of some of your statements above. (1) Personally, I've never understood those who claim to be Christians That is because it takes a Christian to love a Christian. A Christian is a disciple of Christ. You are not a disciple of Christ because your allegiance is to your lusts which are contrary to Christ. You lack the discipline to be a disciple. Your lusts for your woman god and self gratification have preeminence over Christ in your life. You have much potential but waste it because of your own selfish desires. Ever read the verse where it says "Flee fornication"? Maybe if you fled fornication and ran to Christ you could know and understand your brothers and sisters in Christ. (2) yet feel they have a God-given right and reason to ignore the OT Well, all people do have a God-given right to ignore the words in the different books of the Bible. It is called free will. If you were not so heavily into bondage, you would be able to understand that concept. But those who keep slaves or are slaves have trouble understanding the concept of freedom. (3) as if God had changed His mind You claimed to be a minister of God but fail to understand the basic concept of foreknowledge. "Change His mind," indeed. There is no need to change a mind that is already made up. And speaking of "made up" your "made up" doctrines don't cut the mustard. You might want to spend less time attacking me and more time learning what the Bible says which you will be able to do as soon as you flee fornication. God is not going to teach you His word so long as you are hell bent on wrongly dividing it to rationalize your own lusts. (4) BB falls dangerously close into the category of heretic with this and other teachings and beliefs he touts. And just how many times in the past year or two have you been able to prove what I have said to be wrong from the Scriptures? None. Since, what I have written is in harmony with the Scriptures and what you have written is not in harmony with the Scriptures; you are the heretic. (5) (Maybe it's not completely his fault; he is a former cultist, after all - and then, maybe not so former) That is called a deliberate lie. Did you notice steps you took to get to this low point? I enumerated them for you in the numbered statements. (6) Nonetheless, his "teachings" are so far off the mark at times they would be laughable if they weren't so tragic. Yet in the past couple of years you have not been able to prove even one thing I wrote to be wrong. You show is a hypocrite and a liar. >That, along with his megalomaniacal and sadistic need to control and >convince others that they can't possibly know the Bible as well as he >(because he holds the secrets to decoding it), makes his words and >behaviors here decidedly anti-Christ. He does NOT represent >Christianity and certainly not Christ, no matter how much he likes to >label himself a reconciler and Christian Ambassador. You are the control freak, not me. It is you who tie up silly women in sin so that they and you can not do the will of the Lord. I have no need control or convince others that they can not know the Bible. Only a fool or a liar would make such a stupid statement. You made it. I try to share what I have learned hoping that others may learn something that proftits them. I have never said anything about holding the secret codes. I have said that I know how to read the Bible and that I do understand many of the research principles involved in its study. Your hysteria is proof that you are presenting falsehoods. A decent honest woman grounded in Christ would not need to make all of the ridiculous allegations you make. Your hysteeria is proof that you are becoming more and more reprobate and that your mind is becoming more and more seared by a hot iron as a result of your idolatry to the women you worship - yes, I said women. You fool no one (other than the women you use and abuse). You do not represent Christ. Christ was not into homosexuality and did not promote it as god as you do. I may not be perfect, but your allegations of antichrist are pathetic since my posts prove just the opposite. I did not label myself. I know you hate God and His words; but it was God that gave me the ministry of reconcilation so that I could attempt to reconcile people to God with the word of reconcilation he gave me (and all the rest of His children). 2Co 5:17-21 KJV 17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Don't take your hatred for God and Christ out on me. I didn't write the book. It was Gid that said fornication is a no no; not me. >> Christ said *specifically* that the law was still in effect. Where >> specifically did he enumarate the parts you can ignore? > >I'd like to see that, too. I already explained it in another response. >>> <snip> >>>> Maybe someone on another soap box has some better solutions. From [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >Christ said *specifically* that the law was still in effect. Where >specifically did he enumarate the parts you can ignore? Mikey, Duh! Jesus spoke that while the law was still in effect. Duh! Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Duh! The Gospels complete the Old Testament and are not pat of the New Covenant. What Jesus spoke He spoke to those under the Law while the Law was in effect. The Law is still in effect for Israel "to whom" it was written. It was not written "to" the church of God. The "Law" remains in effect for Israel until Jesus assumes control of the kingdom. Maybe you should learn some Bible; learn to read it for yourself rather than trying to parrot the teachings of those you cherry pick for false doctrines to propogate on Usenet. What ever happened to honest atheists. Oh, I forgot; you are an anti-theist, not a true atheist. > Duh! Jesus spoke that while the law was still in effect. Duh! Jesus > was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Duh! The Gospels [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > honest atheists. Oh, I forgot; you are an anti-theist, not a true > atheist. I guess the world has ended then, otherwisw it would seem either you or Matthew Matthew 5:18-19 Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. > > Duh! Jesus spoke that while the law was still in effect. Duh! Jesus >> was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Duh! The Gospels [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in >the kingdom of heaven. Spoken to the Jews "to whom" the kingdom of heaven and the Law apply. >>> Duh! Jesus spoke that while the law was still in effect. Duh! >>> Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Duh! The [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> > Spoken to the Jews "to whom" the kingdom of heaven and the Law apply. As I said, you pick and choose to find the answer you want. You even quote the OT to support your arguments when it suits you. Do we throw out all of Matthew? Just that chapter? Or maybe just that chapter and the next? I can see why you'd want to toss Chapter five, you certainly are not meek. 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. >>>> Duh! Jesus spoke that while the law was still in effect. Duh! >>>> Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Duh! The [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>> >> Spoken to the Jews "to whom" the kingdom of heaven and the Law apply. Follow up. BB claims Jesus was preaching to only the Jews in Matthew 5. However in 4:12, we have, 4:12 Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; and 4:15 tells us that Galilee is of the gentiles. 4:15 The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The last verse tells us that people from all over followed him, including people from Galilee 4:25 And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan. Odd that the writers of chapter five didn't bother to add the part where Jesus told the multitude that gentiles were not included in his speech. But BB will make more excuses and tell us another story. > As I said, you pick and choose to find the answer you want. > You even quote the OT to support your arguments when it suits you. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I can see why you'd want to toss Chapter five, you certainly are not > meek. 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. >>>>> Duh! Jesus spoke that while the law was still in effect. Duh! >>>>> Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Duh! The [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >> I can see why you'd want to toss Chapter five, you certainly are not >> meek. 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Mikey, Act 2:7 KJV And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? >>>>>> Duh! Jesus spoke that while the law was still in effect. Duh! >>>>>> Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Duh! [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, > are not all these which speak Galilaeans? Which of course supports my argument that the 5:18-19 was given to all mankind, not to the select few BB wants for his salad bar christianity. On May 22, 10:03 pm, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Mikey, > > > Act 2:7 KJV > > And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, > > are not all these which speak Galilaeans? > Which of course supports my argument that the 5:18-19 was given to all > mankind, not to the select few BB wants for his salad bar christianity. The Bible *was* written for all mankind - just because the children of Israel had it first, doesn't mean that the words and meaning aren't timeless and for the entire world. You could say that the Bible, like Usenet, is unmoderated and for all who want to participate. BB's brand of "Biblical Christianity" could be compared to those in Usenet who try to claim that certain groups are only for them, and how dare anyone else infiltrate. Bob learned how to "decipher" the Bible from a cult. He vehemently denies it, but his own words, semantics, and associations betray him. He likes to tell people that they need to "get honest with God" (how one can be expected to do so is beyond me, since God is omniscent and already knows everything about us), yet he can't even be honest when confronted with the evidence of his cultic involvement. He even continues to "fellowship" with other former cult members as a kind of sub-cult outside the cult. BB is a fraud, liar, and phony who does not represent the Body of Christ or even Jesus Christ, God Almighty, Himself. How can you expect any thing *more* than "Salad bar Christianity" from the man? On 23 May 2007 07:34:09 -0700, "<~(Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>" <ontheskagit@verizon.net> wrote: >On May 22, 10:03 pm, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >How can you expect any thing *more* than "Salad bar Christianity" from >the man? Kelly, And where does the Bible say that it was written for all man-kind? Rephrase that, where does the word of God say that it was written for all man-kind? God would have all men saved and come unto a knowledge of the truth and during this dispensation it is via the ministry of reconcilation through God's ambassadors for Christ. The truth that makes people free is for disciples. The ten commandments were written to Israel, so was tithing, and all of the rest of the Law. God did speak to Gentiles throgh His prophets; but not one book is written to Gentiles. When it comes to the word of God; you don't manifest too much knowledge of the Scriptures. You do a lot of philosophical talk and a lot of guessing. But you do not know the Scriptures. God does know all; getting honest is for our benefit, not His. Take for example the following passage: 1Jn 1:9 KJV If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. "Confess" is from "homologeo". I know you know what "homo" means. It means "same" and "logeo" is from "logos" (something said). Hence, to confess our sins is to say the same thing God says. You cannot believe and obey because you can not agree with God - you cannot assent, covenant with, or acknowledge truth. For you to get honest would be to confess that homosexuality is wrong. Your pride and lust won't allow you to do so. So, God is wrong and you are right and since you cannot confess your sins; you can't be forgiven. It says "if" you confess your sins. Thus forgivenness is conditional. Until you get honest; you cannot get forgiven. Be mad at me all you want; I didn't write the book. Bottom line is this: Rom 1:26 KJV For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: "Against" is from "para" used in the Accusative Case and means "contrary to". "Nature" is from "phusis" and refers to growth, natural production, kind, nature. Women that do what is against their kind. You don't love those women; you are against their kind because you use them for purposes other than what God intended. You profess yourself to be so wise; but you have become a fool. You changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator. Wherefore God also gave you up to uncleanness through the lusts of your own hearts, to dishonour their your bodies between yourselves. And because you did not like to retain God in your mind but filled your mind with lusts for women and did not like to retain God in your knowledge, God gave you over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. And so what do you do when you find a man that refuses to accept your lies about temple prostitutes being the subject of Roman's One (where they are not mentioned); you manifest hatred in his direction. So you see, Kelly; it is you that have the problem. You are the hater and the luster and the idolator who uses people. You condemn me for attempting to rightly divide the word of truth because you don't dare rail on God in a public forum. >> On May 22, 10:03 pm, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > And where does the Bible say that it was written for all man-kind? Other than when Christ said teach all nations? Or was he wanting them to go theach Latin to all nations? > Rephrase that, where does the word of God say that it was written for > all man-kind? God would have all men saved and come unto a knowledge > of the truth and during this dispensation it is via the ministry of > reconcilation through God's ambassadors for Christ. Which would seem to imply the entirity of man-kind or were they supposed to guess? >The truth that > makes people free is for disciples. The ten commandments were written > to Israel, so was tithing, and all of the rest of the Law. God did > speak to Gentiles throgh His prophets; but not one book is written to > Gentiles. Rather than answer my questions, he just continues the lie. Jesus spoke directly to the gentiles and they followed him. It says so in Matthew. > When it comes to the word of God; you don't manifest too much > knowledge of the Scriptures. You do a lot of philosophical talk and a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our > sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Nice quote but it does not go well from the idea of being saved by grace. It would seem that just confession is sufficient. Are you now a closet Catholic? > "Confess" is from "homologeo". In the hope that somebody will not look up the meanings (plural) of the word, BBrain gives the definition he likes and offers no supporting evidence to show that the other definitons can't be used. > Bottom line is this: > >That BBrain can't actually argue his case so he talks about something else. > Other than when Christ said teach all nations? I'm sure he'll have some handy-dandy answer for this question - I'm looking forward to what deception a twisting he'll use here. > Or was he wanting them to go theach Latin to all nations? Maybe Aramaic... > Which would seem to imply the entirity of man-kind or were they supposed to > guess? Of course they were. In BB's world, if you don't know his secret Bible code, you're doomed. > Rather than answer my questions, he just continues the lie. You're not surprised are you? He's been a liar here for years - just look at his most recent excuses for not taking all of the supposed information he has on Steve Winter to the police. He's been going to do it for at least a month - but as usual all BB is, is talk. > Jesus spoke directly to the gentiles and they followed him. It says so in > Matthew. Yep - that's a fact. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the "Bible" Bob school of super-cool Bible deciphering. Then it all really means something else. > Nice quote but it does not go well from the idea of being saved by grace. It > would seem that just confession is sufficient. Well it actually does (you need confession along with repentence in order to be saved by grace), but from BB's perspective, there's always another condition to simple grace. Obviously, he's just trying to use the verse as another cherry-pick to make a point: *his* point (and BB's point is always primary in BB's posts). But, then again, BB doesn't believe that the Gospels were written to seekers and new believers, so I wouldn't expect anything more from him. BB, like so many others in here, never believe that God's grace is sufficient - and *that* is "another Gospel". > Are you now a closet > Catholic? Nah, he's just a control-freak with a cornucopia of beliefs who lacks a solid foundation. It could be why he bounces from home-group to home-group. > > "Confess" is from "homologeo". > > In the hope that somebody will not look up the meanings (plural) of the > word, BBrain gives the definition he likes and offers no supporting evidence > to show that the other definitons can't be used. The truth about usage of the Greek transliteration homologeo is that it has numerous meanings - confess being only one of them. He's cherry-picking again. > > Bottom line is this: > > >That BBrain can't actually argue his case so he talks about something else. "Bible" Bob is trying to make a point about something that he's seemingly obsessed with (aside from his Steve Winter obsession) - homosexuality. (BTW, I'm starting to note an obsession with homosexuality in the Christian groups amongst the non-gay "Christians". They're the ones always talking about it even when the thread topic isn't about it. And *I'm* supposed to be the one with the so-called "agenda" ;-) It also irks him that I no longer answer his posts - and he tries his darndest to flush me out. I wrote him off last year due to his disgusting, vulgar remarks where he took glee in describing in detail the act of anal sex between Steve Winter and Satan. After I called him on it, he refused to admit that there was anything wrong with what he wrote, and even tried to allude that Jesus would have said the same thing. BB's full of excuses, deceptions, and half-truths (but I think you already knew that, Mike). On 23 May 2007 21:54:45 -0700, "<~(Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>" <ontheskagit@verizon.net> wrote: >> Other than when Christ said teach all nations? > >I'm sure he'll have some handy-dandy answer for this question - I'm >looking forward to what deception a twisting he'll use here. I thought you had me kill-filed. I handled it a few minutes a go. You are the deceiver; I say what the word of God says. First you went a whoring after Steve Winter and now after Mike Painter sucking up to them and trying to team up with them against me. Sheesh, you sure are desperate. Why don't you try one of the more honorable believers like Jesus Christ? Oh, I forgot; you and He don't get along to well do you? >> Or was he wanting them to go theach Latin to all nations? > >Maybe Aramaic... So much for you being a Biblical scholar. An opportunity to give tghe rightly divided word to an atheist and you thre it away for the sake of vengance. That is real sad beause I suspect you are able to read Greek well enough to expound Mat 28:19 correctly. You really do consider your ambassadorship for the Lord Jesus Christ to be a joke; don't you. >> Which would seem to imply the entirity of man-kind or were they supposed to >> guess? > >Of course they were. In BB's world, if you don't know his secret >Bible code, you're doomed. More lies. There is no secret code. You say there is; but I have never said so and I do not believe there is. When God gives the ministry of reconcilation and the word of reconcilation to an ambassador; they belong to and are understandable and teachable by the ambassadors. For you to take a cheap shot at God like you just did shows that you are really peeved at Him for not okaying lesbianism. Rom 9:20-23 KJV 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, >> Rather than answer my questions, he just continues the lie. > >You're not surprised are you? He's been a liar here for years - just >look at his most recent excuses for not taking all of the supposed >information he has on Steve Winter to the police. He's been going to >do it for at least a month - but as usual all BB is, is talk. No. Not talk. I do things according to my schedule which just happens to be pretty full with work and visiting relatives right now. Steve is not that important. I have already talked to the appropriate people. I would rather that they do what needs to be done without my input. Besides, in case you haven't noticed I have been trying to give Steve a way out of his mess; just like I did John Wolf. I am not you Kelly. My heart is not full of hatred. Whatever I write must be accurate and just. Steve may be an idiot; but he is an idiot with a family to support. Whatever action I take may also affect his wife and his marriage. I have to do what I do as close to God's way as possible. >> Jesus spoke directly to the gentiles and they followed him. It says so in >> Matthew. > >Yep - that's a fact. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the "Bible" >Bob school of super-cool Bible deciphering. Then it all really means >something else. Chapter and verse please. You might want to read what I wrote to Mike first, though. Speaking to a Gentile; doesnot mean that the Bible is written to the Gentiles; does it? I asked you to provide one verse that says the Bible is written to all man-kind. You haven't been able to do so. Do you know why? Because you don't know the Bible. >> Nice quote but it does not go well from the idea of being saved by grace. It >> would seem that just confession is sufficient. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >many others in here, never believe that God's grace is sufficient - >and *that* is "another Gospel". That's a lie. BB hasa said many many times that to be saved one must confess Jesus as Lord and beleive in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 10:9). That is being saved by grace. First John One speaks about fellowship for those that are already saved and has nothing to do with getting saved. As an ordained minister you should know that. Show me from the Gospels that they are written to " Gentiles." Come on, let's see if you can do it ordained woman. Let's see if your training was worth anything. For that matter, prove from the Gospels that their application is for the church of God. Be careful to pay attention "to whom" Jesus was speaking and if there appears to be an apparent contradiction between what Jesus said in the Gospels and what Jesus, Peter, or Paul says in Acts or the Church Epistles reconcile the apparent contradiction. You claim to be the ordained trained woman while I claim to be only a "me". Let's see just how well you know the word of God. Let's see just how well you have been trained. >> Are you now a closet >> Catholic? > >Nah, he's just a control-freak with a cornucopia of beliefs who lacks >a solid foundation. It could be why he bounces from home-group to >home-group. Actually, my beliefs are rock solid. I don't flip flop from God's doctrines to man's philosophies from moment to moment as you do. My posting record proves that I stay consistent; but when proven wrong admit to it and change my belief system. >> > "Confess" is from "homologeo". >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >it has numerous meanings - confess being only one of them. He's >cherry-picking again. Once again, you prove your lack of spiritual wisdom and your lack of understanding of the Scriptures. Worse, you demonstrate that to you being a Christian is simply a convenient philosophy. Read me response to Mikey; where I handle the above. >> > Bottom line is this: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >would have said the same thing. BB's full of excuses, deceptions, and >half-truths (but I think you already knew that, Mike). Nice try Kelly, I am not anti "homosexual" as you know full well. The behavior is wrong because God says so but the people who are subject to the spiritual influences that cause it are no worse than any other fornicator. You are the pretender; not me. I say what I mean and mean what I say. I am not blown about by every wind of doctrine as you are. I am not into idolatry as you are. Care to quote the posts you are talking about above in their entirety? You are not known as a truth teller. Let's see if you are lying again. >>> On May 22, 10:03 pm, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >Other than when Christ said teach all nations? >Or was he wanting them to go theach Latin to all nations? Not bad, Mikey. But He did not say that the word of God was written to all people. Besides, what Jesus said was "disciple" whole nations. The word "teach" is from matheteuo; to disciple. "All" is is from "pas" singular with the article - "tanta ta ethne" and therefore means "whole" nations; disciple whole nations. Look it up in any Greek Interlinear. Mat 28:19 KJV Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Notice that I covered that in the next paragraph where I spoke about the minisry of reconcilation. With the minisry of reconcilation comes the word of reconciliation. So, the word of God was given to the saints to share with unbelievers because faith cometh be hearing the word of God; not reading it. >> Rephrase that, where does the word of God say that it was written for >> all man-kind? God would have all men saved and come unto a knowledge [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Which would seem to imply the entirity of man-kind or were they supposed to >guess? They are supposed to listen to God's ambassadors. The natural man discerneth not the things of the spirit of God. He needs spiritual man to explain spiritual things (the word of God) to him. You just proved my point for me. You can read the Bible; but you do not understand what you read and need me to explain it to you. >>The truth that >> makes people free is for disciples. The ten commandments were written [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Jesus spoke directly to the gentiles and they followed him. It says so in >Matthew. Where in Matthew? Anybody can say that "It says something in Matthew," but that doesn't mean what the person says is true. If you are talking about the woman of Canaan. Note that Jesus responded to her by saying: Mat 15:24 KJV But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. I shared that section of Scripture with the group a year or two ago. It is one of two occurences of the Figure Accismus in the Bible and therefore a really kewl section of Scripture. You say Jesus spoke directly to "Gentiles." You didn't say "Galileans" and you didn't say "Samaritans." Here is what Jesus told the twelve: Mat 10:5 KJV These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: So, I got a verse that says " I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. " and averse that says "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:" but you say Jesus spoke to Gentiles. Chapter and verse please. >> When it comes to the word of God; you don't manifest too much >> knowledge of the Scriptures. You do a lot of philosophical talk and a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >would seem that just confession is sufficient. Are you now a closet >Catholic? You are confusing salvation with forgiveness of sins. Don't feel bad; many Christians make the same mistake. Confession of sins is for people that already saved who have sinned. Confession of the Savior from sin is for the unbeliever. If you read the context of First John you will see that the topic is fellowship that our joy may be full. First John is written to beleivers; not unbelievers. 1Jn 1:3 KJV That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 1Jn 1:4 KJV And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. >> "Confess" is from "homologeo". > >In the hope that somebody will not look up the meanings (plural) of the >word, BBrain gives the definition he likes and offers no supporting evidence >to show that the other definitons can't be used. Bad lie Mikey. BB hopes that people will look up defintions so they can learn the word of God. Here are a couple definitions: Strong: homologeo hom-ol-og-eh'-o From a compound of the base of G3674 and G3056; to assent, that is, covenant, acknowledge: - con- (pro-) fess, confession is made, give thanks, promise. Bullinger: Homologeo, to speak or say the same together with another, i.e. to speak the same language, to say the same things, i.e. to assent, accord, agree with, hence, to concede, admit, confess. Mikey, you do a lot of talking about what you know little about. Let's face it, at best you can cherry pick quotes out of context from writers soley to throw at and deceive untrianed believers. You are not a very honest man when it comes to the Bible. Let's face it; you are a fundamentalist antitheist religionist who hates all religions but his own. You accuse me of providing no supporting evidence; but I did do just that quoting 1 John 1:9. I was writing to Kelly who is a believer and knows what the verse says and should know what it means. I was not writing to you as I am now where I have to explain things as I would to a child. I wish I was a Bible Brain >> Bottom line is this: >> >>That BBrain can't actually argue his case so he talks about something else. Nothing to argue. I simply confronted Kelly about her wrong behavior commenting only on what I chose to comment on. I get to do that because I am the one doing the writing just like you gdet to write about what you want to write about when you write something. Let's face it Mikey; you aren't the most honest poster on Usenet. If you were an honorable man you would behave like an honorable man. >>> And where does the Bible say that it was written for all man-kind? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "whole" nations; disciple whole nations. Look it up in any Greek > Interlinear. Your inability to recognise that a literal translation of a word rarely gives an accurate meaning is noted. You idea that you know more than the people who translated it as "teach" is also noted. You can't give a meaning to "Me and the boys walked into the blizzard and I was the only one that survived." without knowing when it was written. You can't tell me what "It, was a cool evening." means without knowing when and why it was written. Those are English words and phrases, yet with no formal educaztion you claim to know more than what the scholars know. Hubris. > Mat 28:19 KJV > Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > saints to share with unbelievers because faith cometh be hearing the > word of God; not reading it. Which has nothing to do with the subject at hand. <snip> >> Rather than answer my questions, he just continues the lie. >> Jesus spoke directly to the gentiles and they followed him. It says >> so in Matthew. >> > Where in Matthew? Anybody can say that "It says something in > Matthew," but that doesn't mean what the person says is true. I quoted the passages in this thread. You and others replied to those comments Your inability to follow the thread or remember what was said is yet another example of your ignorance. >>>> And where does the Bible say that it was written for all man-kind? >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >gives an accurate meaning is noted. You idea that you know more than the >people who translated it as "teach" is also noted. Bull. The word of God is not a literature book even though most people read it as one. Your sentence is false. All words are literal dependent on the context in which they are used unless they are marked by a specific figure of speech. A literal translation of a word is what "scholars" use. Hebrew and Greek Interlinears, for example, are literal translations. Bibles are "versions" where editors adapt or paraphrase literal translations into what they want the book to say. As I said, look it up in a Greek Interlinear where you will read "Going therefore disciple all the nations, baptizing them to the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit;" (p.87, The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament, by George Rickery Berry). You need to stop being so silly. You know me well enough by now to know that what I write and say comes from the best and most accurate sources. >You can't give a meaning to "Me and the boys walked into the blizzard and I >was the only one that survived." without knowing when it was written. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >to know more than what the scholars know. >Hubris. You are mouthing gibberish. In your first sentence, the meaning is that I survived and the time line is within my lifetime. I can tell that the evening spoken about was a cool one regardless of when and why it was written. I did not say that I know more than what scholars know since my sources are scholars; real scholars whose work has stood the test of time. Almost all of my word definitions come from one or more of five well respected sources; Berry, Bullinger, Strong, Young or Wigram. >> Mat 28:19 KJV >> Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >Which has nothing to do with the subject at hand. It absolutely does. Apparently you lack the ability to comprehend ><snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >comments Your inability to follow the thread or remember what was said is >yet another example of your ignorance. You quoted from the following passages where Isaiah foretold about what would happen in "Galilee of the Gentiles." It was called Galilee of the Gentiles when the prophecy was spoken. The prophecy does not say that all the people would be "Gentiles" when the prophecy was fulfilled. If you would learn to read in context; you would see that Jesus went to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not Gentiles. Mat 4:12-23 KJV 12 Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; 13 And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim: 14 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, 15 The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; 16 The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up. 17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. 20 And they straightway left their nets, and followed him. 21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them. 22 And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him. 23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. Mike, you don't know how to read the word of God as you have demonstrated time and time again. You are therefore not qualified to make intelligent comments about what it does say. Besides, you claim to be an atheist, a natural man unable to discern the things of the spirit of God. In reality, you are a fundamentalist antitheist religionist whose religion requires him to talk trash about what he knows nothing about. You attack me and you attack the word of God armed with a water baloons which you throw backwards in your attempts to hit your target. >>>>> And where does the Bible say that it was written for all man-kind? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > literal translations. Bibles are "versions" where editors adapt or > paraphrase literal translations into what they want the book to say. Thank you for supporting my contention that you are very ignorantr > As I said, look it up in a Greek Interlinear where you will read > "Going therefore disciple all the nations, baptizing them to the name [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > know that what I write and say comes from the best and most accurate > sources. I know that that statement is a stupid lie. >> You can't give a meaning to "Me and the boys walked into the >> blizzard and I was the only one that survived." without knowing when [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > more of five well respected sources; Berry, Bullinger, Strong, Young > or Wigram. As I said, you can't tell what the meaning of those sentences are. What did "you" survive in the first sentence? Tell me exactly. Using cool to define cool is what you do. Describe exactly what I meant. >>> Mat 28:19 KJV >>> Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > fulfilled. If you would learn to read in context; you would see that > Jesus went to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not Gentiles. "Galilee of the Gentiles" Babble on BB. You continue to support the cause of atheism. On May 26, 11:29 pm, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Babble on BB. Now he's babbling on as "Joe Bol" (I think he meant to spell "Joe Blo"), denying it, yet leaving traces of himself when he is Joe. Funny stuff. (If he hadn't been such an arrogant blowhard jerk all this time, I'd think it was all kinda sad, too) > The ten commandments were written > to Israel, so was tithing, and all of the rest of the Law. Boiling a goat in its mother's milk as I write this... >> The ten commandments were written >> to Israel, so was tithing, and all of the rest of the Law. > >Boiling a goat in its mother's milk as I write this... You must not be very Jewish. Seething a kid in its mother's milk doesn't sound too appetizing. I can't think of any meat cooked in milk except for gravy. My mom used to make potato soup with bacon, potatoes, unions, milk, and butter. That was good. Since I'm not a Jew, I might make me some. > >> The ten commandments were written > >> to Israel, so was tithing, and all of the rest of the Law. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to make potato soup with bacon, potatoes, unions, milk, and butter. > That was good. Since I'm not a Jew, I might make me some. So that's what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. SignatureGreg ---- http://www.spencerbooksellers.com greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com > >>>> Duh! Jesus spoke that while the law was still in effect. Duh! > >>>> Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Duh! The [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > But BB will make more excuses and tell us another story. The easy way to tell which parts of the bible were meant just for jews is to ask a christian if he wants to follow the rules contained in it. If not, then it's just for the jews. It's kind of odd that god practices religious (or ethnic?) discrimination this way. Of course, I can understand why christians don't want to follow some of god's rules. Some of them are pretty damn stupid. For example, the rule against wearing clothes made of different fabrics. Only an idiot would want to follow a stupid rule like that. OTOH, only an all loving, omniscient god would create such a rule. SignatureGreg ---- http://www.spencerbooksellers.com greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com Which ""Bible Thumper"" is actually Kane the Atheist playing games? >>>> Duh! Jesus spoke that while the law was still in effect. Duh! >>>> Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Duh! The [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >I can see why you'd want to toss Chapter five, you certainly are not meek. >5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Mikey, Meek means willing to learn which apparently you aren't. We don't throw out any books. We read words in context according to Biblical usage paying attention "to whom" passages are written. Which ""Bible Thumper"" is actually Kane the Atheist playing games? Which ""Bible Thumper"" is actually Kane the Atheist playing games? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.