ECT Old Covenant?

[Danoh]

Never mind the middle of those two that is also as absolute as a yea, or a nay.

"Are you still beating your wife?"

'Nonsense - I never did beat my wife.'

Fact is, as James later elaborates; the issue is that if you'll simply be a man of your word, it will stand you in good stead when the temptation to go back on it, that some seemingly easier course might be given into; beckons.

James 5:

12. But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

Such a man will never beat his wife, or what have you, simply because the guy's word is both his yea, and his nay... is his, bond.

In this, we all know lost people whose word is their bond much more so then many Believers.

 

[john w]

So no answer then.

Is G.T. still posting, or did you shut them down for good. :/


Daniel

1.0

1.I'm the director here; you are the dancer. Answer all my questions first, and I may give you the honor of a rematch, a shot at the title, after I bloodied you in the other thread,wolfie.

2. As I asked: chapter, verse, where I am required to "answer" anyone, especially wolves, such as yourself.

The fool is scrambling to his commentaries for an "answer," as he does not study, and survey the book, as I do.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

1.I'm the director here; you are the dancer. Answer all my questions first, and I may give you the honor of a rematch, a shot at the title, after I bloodied you in the other thread,wolfie...

O.K., fair enough.

Is Matthew 5:37 KJV written to the Church? Yes or no.

False dichotomy.

1. "False dichotomy."
The charge of False dichotomy is, 1st of all, a serious 1. Whenever somebody present's only two option's, and, that their mutually exclusive; but they are not actually mutually exclusive, it is a False dichotomy.

So if my question is a False dichotomy, we ought to be able to identify exactly how it is a False dichotomy. We ought to be able to show that the two option's presented as mutually exclusive, are in fact not mutually exclusive at all.

Is Matthew 5:37 KJV written to the Church? Yes or no.

The way I have written it, assuming they'res no funny business, imply's that I believe that their can only be 1 right answer, either Yes or No. But you charge that it is a False dichotomy. So where I'm implying that either:

A. Matthew 5:37 KJV is written to the Church, or
B. Matthew 5:37 KJV is not written to the Church.

Your claiming that they're is at least a third option. Your claiming 1) that these two option's are not mutually exclusive, that they can both be true, or 2) that they're is some third option that is true, and that both of these are false.

1) Matthew 5:37 KJV is written to the Church, and Matthew 5:37 KJV is not written to the Church.

This option is the more likely I.M.O., based on you're charge of False dichotomy. If it is true, then Matthew 5:37 KJV is written to the Church in 1 way, and Matthew 5:37 KJV is not written to the Church, in another way. No other option.

The way in which Matthew 5:37 KJV is not written to the Church, must be that we are not to take Matthew 5:37 KJV as directed at us. We are to read Matthew 5:37 KJV as if it is somebody elses email, written by Someone we know, but He is communicating with somebody else, and not to us, His Church.

But in what way then is it written to the Church? This is where I struggle to understand you, if you mean by you're charge of False dichotomy option 1).

2) Matthew 5:37 KJV is neither written to the Church, and nor is Matthew 5:37 KJV not written to the Church: they're is a third option.

I honestly cannot figure out how this could be true. I cannot come up with a way that Matthew 5:37 KJV is neither written to the Church, nor not written to the Church. I guess its something like the option above, maybe? That it is not written to the Church in 1 way, and it is not written to the Church in another way also?

I really have no idea.


Daniel

1.1​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

1.I'm the director here; you are the dancer. Answer all my questions first, and I may give you the honor of a rematch, a shot at the title, after I bloodied you in the other thread,wolfie...

Is Matthew 5:37 KJV written to the Church? Yes or no.

False dichotomy.

Humanism.

2. "Humanism."

I have to look up this 1.

noun: humanism
--an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

--a Renaissance cultural movement that turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought.

--(among some contemporary writers) a system of thought criticized as being centered on the notion of the rational, autonomous self and ignoring the unintegrated and conditioned nature of the individual.​

Is Matthew 5:37 KJV written to the Church? Yes or no.

Matthew 5

37 ...let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.​

I just don't know how my question is Humanism. What do you mean? I cannot connect Humanism to my question. I cannot do it, I don't see how they connect with each other.


Daniel

1.1​

 

[john w]

O.K., fair enough.

1. "False dichotomy."
The charge of False dichotomy is, 1st of all, a serious 1. Whenever somebody present's only two option's, and, that their mutually exclusive; but they are not actually mutually exclusive, it is a False dichotomy.

So if my question is a False dichotomy, we ought to be able to identify exactly how it is a False dichotomy. We ought to be able to show that the two option's presented as mutually exclusive, are in fact not mutually exclusive at all.
The way I have written it, assuming they'res no funny business, imply's that I believe that their can only be 1 right answer, either Yes or No. But you charge that it is a False dichotomy. So where I'm implying that either:

A. Matthew 5:37 KJV is written to the Church, or
B. Matthew 5:37 KJV is not written to the Church.

Your claiming that they're is at least a third option. Your claiming 1) that these two option's are not mutually exclusive, that they can both be true, or 2) that they're is some third option that is true, and that both of these are false.

1) Matthew 5:37 KJV is written to the Church, and Matthew 5:37 KJV is not written to the Church.

This option is the more likely I.M.O., based on you're charge of False dichotomy. If it is true, then Matthew 5:37 KJV is written to the Church in 1 way, and Matthew 5:37 KJV is not written to the Church, in another way. No other option.

The way in which Matthew 5:37 KJV is not written to the Church, must be that we are not to take Matthew 5:37 KJV as directed at us. We are to read Matthew 5:37 KJV as if it is somebody elses email, written by Someone we know, but He is communicating with somebody else, and not to us, His Church.

But in what way then is it written to the Church? This is where I struggle to understand you, if you mean by you're charge of False dichotomy option 1).

2) Matthew 5:37 KJV is neither written to the Church, and nor is Matthew 5:37 KJV not written to the Church: they're is a third option.

I honestly cannot figure out how this could be true. I cannot come up with a way that Matthew 5:37 KJV is neither written to the Church, nor not written to the Church. I guess its something like the option above, maybe? That it is not written to the Church in 1 way, and it is not written to the Church in another way also?

I really have no idea.


Daniel

1.1​

He punts my questions, and tries to be "cute." Next.

 

[john w]

2. "Humanism."

I have to look up this 1.

noun: humanism
--an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

--a Renaissance cultural movement that turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought.

--(among some contemporary writers) a system of thought criticized as being centered on the notion of the rational, autonomous self and ignoring the unintegrated and conditioned nature of the individual.​

Matthew 5

37 ...let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.​

I just don't know how my question is Humanism. What do you mean? I cannot connect Humanism to my question. I cannot do it, I don't see how they connect with each other.


Daniel

1.1​

Chapter, verse, where I am required to "answer" anyone, especially wolves, such as yourself.

I thought so.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

He punts my questions, and tries to be "cute." Next.

Which question did I miss? If I punted, it was unintentional.

Chapter, verse, where I am required to "answer" anyone, especially wolves, such as yourself...

They're is none. You don't have to answer.

...I thought so.

Me too. Thats how the previously aforementioned "pummeling" and "bloodying" went too as I recall; you didn't answer then either.

And how am I a wolf, exactly?


Daniel

1.0
​

 

[john w]

Which question did I miss? If I punted, it was unintentional.
They're is none. You don't have to answer.
Me too. Thats how the previously aforementioned "pummeling" and "bloodying" went too as I recall; you didn't answer then either.

And how am I a wolf, exactly?


Daniel

1.0
​

All of them/You've admitted you're a wolf- Hebrews thread, in which you conceded, as I picked you apart.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

All of them/You've admitted you're a wolf- Hebrews thread, in which you conceded, as I picked you apart.

I never admitted I was a wolf.

You didn't pick me apart either, as I recall.


Daniel

1.0
​

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Ask what covenant John W and STP are under ?

LA

What covenant was Lot saved under?

 

[john w]

I never admitted I was a wolf.

Yes, you did. You asserted that Judas preached the good news of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV.

Wolfie.

You didn't pick me apart either, as I recall.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111888&page=20

Post #292

You bailed, as I methodically dismantled you, picked you apart. You don't "recall," because I pummeled you so badly, you suffered a head injury, as you lied in a heap, on the mat, bloodied, by the champ, the great, and humble, saint John W. Here you are...

 

[DAN P]

How come you don't just answer the yes/no question?


Daniel

Hi and anyone that reads Matt 5:17 , Jesus is speaking about the Law of Moses , and can you say " YEA , YEA or Nay , Nay to what Jesus says in verse 17 ?

dan p

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Yes, you did. You asserted that Judas preached the good news of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV.

Wolfie.


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111888&page=20

Post #292

You bailed, as I methodically dismantled you, picked you apart. You don't "recall," because I pummeled you so badly, you suffered a head injury, as you lied in a heap, on the mat, bloodied, by the champ, the great, and humble, saint John W. Here you are...

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110499


Daniel

1.0
​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Hi and anyone that reads Matt 5:17 , Jesus is speaking about the Law of Moses , and can you say " YEA , YEA or Nay , Nay to what Jesus says in verse 17 ?

dan p

Answer my question 1st:

Is Matthew 5:37 KJV written to the Church? Yes or no.

Daniel

1.0
​

 

[DAN P]

Answer my question 1st:



Daniel

1.0
​

Hi and Matthew is not written to the EKKLESIA ?

EKKLESIA does not means church , and is a Greek compound word ' EK which means out and KALEO which means a calling !!

EKKLESIA then means a calling out and means ASSEMBLY !!:darwinsm::darwinsm:

DAN P

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Hi and Matthew is not written to the EKKLESIA ?

EKKLESIA does not means church , and is a Greek compound word ' EK which means out and KALEO which means a calling !!

EKKLESIA then means a calling out and means ASSEMBLY !!:darwinsm::darwinsm:

DAN P

I know, but, CHURCH mean's EKKLESIA.

Is Matthew 5:37 KJV written to the Church? Yes or no.

Daniel

1.1
​

 

[Interplanner]

re Mt 5. It is written to believers but that group that first heard had Judaistic particulars it had to deal with.

We might not today.