Interesting Alabaster Box Contradictions!

[Mizzy]

And you are...?

I am the one that caught you avoiding a question by giving an answer that could be taken as a no, but could still be a yes. And you're still avoiding it, I see. ;)

Please! You're the devil's advocate, and that next guy is the devil's advocate advocate.

And you avoided the question with a careful answer & continue to beat around the bush. BUSTEDDDDDDD!!!! :toofunny

 

[precepts]

And you are...?

I am the one that caught you avoiding a question by giving an answer that could be taken as a no, but could still be a yes. And you're still avoiding it, I see. ;)

Please! You're the devil's advocate, and that next guy is the devil's advocate advocate.

And you avoided the question with a careful answer & continue to beat around the bush. BUSTEDDDDDDD!!!! :toofunny

Wow! This is exactly why we're to test the spirits! There's nothing productive in this conversation, but pure ridicule. Carry on!

 

[Mizzy]

Please! You're the devil's advocate, and that next guy is the devil's advocate advocate.

And you avoided the question with a careful answer & continue to beat around the bush. BUSTEDDDDDDD!!!! :toofunny

Wow! This is exactly why we're to test the spirits! There's nothing productive in this conversation, but pure ridicule. Carry on!

Finally we agree! You come into a Christian forum & want to tear apart the Word of God over an Alabaster box, avoid direct questions & then call ME the devil's advocate??? :naughty Tsk, Tsk!

 

[WIP]

Is this thread going somewhere positive?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Is this thread going somewhere positive?

Well, at least they sound polite in a way to one another.

 

[precepts]

Please! You're the devil's advocate, and that next guy is the devil's advocate advocate.

And you avoided the question with a careful answer & continue to beat around the bush. BUSTEDDDDDDD!!!! :toofunny

Wow! This is exactly why we're to test the spirits! There's nothing productive in this conversation, but pure ridicule. Carry on!

Finally we agree! You come into a Christian forum & want to tear apart the Word of God over an Alabaster box, avoid direct questions & then call ME the devil's advocate??? :naughty Tsk, Tsk!

I want to tear apart the word of God? Can you honestly say that with a straight face?

Now, that's something to laugh at!

 

[turnorburn]

I find nothing positive about the foundation of this thread WIP It should have been titled

Yea, hath God said

Genesis 3:11 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

tob

 

[WIP]

Is this thread going somewhere positive?

Well, at least they sound polite in a way to one another.

Yes....for now.

 

[precepts]

I find nothing positive about the foundation of this thread WIP It should have been titled

Yea, hath God said

Genesis 3:11 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

tob

Anyone that's born of God, we're not all born of God, knows what side of the fence you're on. Righteous trees can only bring forth righteous friut, friend. So your opinion has little effect on the truth. Feel the truth!

 

[jasoncran]

ok., you don't believe that the new testament is inspired and yet you just quoted that from the words found in the synoptical gospels. why how arbritrary of you. can you show me in the tanach that thought?

 

[smaller]

ok., you don't believe that the new testament is inspired and yet you just quoted that from the words found in the synoptical gospels. why how arbritrary of you. can you show me in the tanach that thought?

[deleted reference to deleted post]

Regarding your 'twins' statement, there are many such accounts in the entire text with many interesting variants. Largely they are scriptural pictures of the 'old blinded man' and 'one who sees a little better.' Such as Cephas to Peter or Saul to Paul. But there are many other pictures in the text of this exact matter. Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob are some of the easier ones to spot.

As to the supposed 'contradictions?' Only if one reads in a purely literal way will they come to such conclusions.

In the light of TWINS there are actually two full accounts with two entirely different sights in every account in the text and they both have their own rules. Those who see 'in the light' will see much differently than those who see through a worldly literal only lens.

That's just the way it is.

s

 

[precepts]

ok., you don't believe that the new testament is inspired and yet you just quoted that from the words found in the synoptical gospels. why how arbritrary of you. can you show me in the tanach that thought?

I never said it wasn't inspired, but that it's not 100% the gospel truth. You people make mountains out of mole hills. Instead of accepting the facts, you throw out the baby with the bath water!

 

[precepts]

Regarding your 'twins' statement, there are many such accounts in the entire text with many interesting variants. Largely they are scriptural pictures of the 'old blinded man' and 'one who sees a little better.' Such as Cephas to Peter or Saul to Paul. But there are many other pictures in the text of this exact matter. Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob are some of the easier ones to spot.

Picture this, I don't know what you're talking about? Should I read between the lines?

As to the supposed 'contradictions?' Only if one reads in a purely literal way will they come to such conclusions.

That's the "great divide," friend.

In the light of TWINS there are actually two full accounts with two entirely different sights in every account in the text and they both have their own rules. Those who see 'in the light' will see much differently than those who see through a worldly literal only lens.

That's just the way it is.

s

And you missed it.

I learned a long time ago there's only three types of people in the world; those born of God who overcomes the world and what's in it; those born of God but never overcoming the world, snared in religion; and those born of the devil, snared in eternity. I draw the line in the sand when it comes to distinquishing the spirits because it's not everyone that says Lord, Lord, is of God. There are those that are here to distort and hide the truth, and the truth is an offense to them. By their fruits you will know them, and they don't have to hide their feelings because they're the majority! We are living in the days similiar to Noah's.

 

[smaller]

Picture this, I don't know what you're talking about? Should I read between the lines?

Already said a 'form of twin' is the 'old man/new man' showings of Cephas/Peter and Saul/Paul. See any 'twins?' Not all scriptural twins are genetic.

That's the "great divide," friend.

To say there is only one literal approach for understandings is an automatic disqualifier.

Could give hundreds of examples of 'why' literal only dissections are almost entirely worthless.

I learned a long time ago there's only three types of people in the world; those born of God who overcomes the world and what's in it; those born of God but never overcoming the world, snared in religion; and those born of the devil, snared in eternity. I draw the line in the sand when it comes to distinquishing the spirits because it's not everyone that says Lord, Lord, is of God. There are those that are here to distort and hide the truth, and the truth is an offense to them. By their fruits you will know them, and they don't have to hide their feelings because they're the majority! We are living in the days similiar to Noah's.

I'd say your dissection above is an entirely personal concoction.

There are actually other ways to see the same matters, believe it or not.

I guess we can all try to pound ourselves though only your subjective filters though and, you know, see if it works?

lol

s

 

[WIP]

I kindly ask that we get back to the topic of the thread before this discussion takes a path into the trash.