Since you don't know how to define vulgar, being vulgar at it....
Questions for Arians
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Since you don't know how to define vulgar, being vulgar at it....
Lon
Well-known member
Doesn't need it. It says, literally, "to Him." Done deal, no?
Striking this out, doesn't make it unreadable or go away:
It IS just this clear.
In other words, foul language.
That's against the rules, and is infraction worthy.
Lon
Well-known member
Such is infraction-worthy on TOL, however.
On top of infraction-worthy, It isn't fit for spiritual conversation so I'm ever bothered by it. It lowers the conversation that is supposed to be spiritual, down to a fleshly basal level. Instead of being about God and His revelation, it becomes about 'how you appropriately/inappropriately feel about it" instead.
I don't agree that it is. You just want to be a jerk.
Lon
Well-known member
Incorrect. The Greek is EXACTLY that clear. To me, it seems YOU are trying to import English into a Greek text (importantly) that stands as COMPLETE without the imposition. IOW, at that point you are certainly reading 'into' the text. That's a " :nono: "
Er, punctuation like that doesn't 'change' the meaning, it emphasizes it. You are free to put a period there if it bothers you. Such changes not a lot, about next to nothing. ANY liberty we take with the text should not/cannot change the meaning of the text. Huge huge difference.
LOL... I see. Words that express concepts that you don't like are phony made up words.
You're actually pretty funny because I got a good laugh out of the fact that you used a made up word to say indwell is made up world. When I look for an authority on words I go to the dictionary not some anonymous person on the internet who likes to make up words.
The only one being dishonest here is you.
In other words, you twist what scripture says to fit your beliefs. That much we know already.
Did Jesus or did Jesus not affirm Paul as His messenger to the Gentile?
Quote scripture to support your answer.
This is a non-substantive comment.
Please put more effort into your posts, or I'll kick you from the thread.
So, you see misrepresenting who the Holy Spirit is as basically meaningless? What did Jesus say about blaspheming the Holy Spirit? He said all manner of sins could be forgiven, but blaspheming the person of the Holy Spirit would not, could not, be forgiven. That sounds extremely serious to me.
That was not, and is not, a dishonest statement. You claim that the plain wording of scripture is too confusing to be understood. Jesus time after time referred to the Holy Spirit as he. He spoke of the Holy Spirt with pronouns such as whom, himself, and he. He never once called the Holy Spirit an it, and yet you do. You're the one saying those verses just can't be understood for you deny not only the words of Jesus, you deny the meaning of the English language by refusing to acknowledge that words have specific meanings. You claim following the grammatical rules of the English language is just too confusing.
Sorry, Meshak, but that is what is dishonest.
Ofcorse you will neny it.
If you keep this up, you will be disregarded.
I am too busy for this kind of game.
good day.
If that's the way you want it. You haven't provided a single verse to support your view that the Holy Spirit is an it. When a person can't provide any scriptural support for their position it ought to tell them something. It ought to tell them that their position isn't Biblical.
How is saying you are misrepresenting the Holy Spirit going low when your position is not Biblical? You can provide zero scripture to support your statements, and deny the scriptural evidence that says He is a person. Where, once again, is your Biblical support for your position?