danvon:
Op your logic is strange isn't your son a part of you?

vaxx:
no my son is a different entity from me

danvon:
I didn't ask if your son is you, I asked if he isn't a part of you?

vaxx:
read my op again

danvon:
How many times do I have to read it God sent his begotten son which is the same thing as sending a big part of himself, so your point is strange

vaxx:
read it yourself, if your father sent you an errant, does it equal to sending himself or a big part of him self? i will like to see your strange logic here

danvon:
So according to you sending yourself and leaving your house and servants alone is the best solution

vaxx:
so GOD IS NOT OMNIPRESENT AGAIN

vaxx:
lets, see how you will apply your pseudo intellectual you hold in high esteem on the below rebuttal,
me, asking commentators not to go ahead to quote biblical verse further is to safe them fro quoting another hoax verses from the bible,
we are presently dealing with one, if the need to address another verse then we can go ahead.
we can be using one hoax to rob another hoax that will cause more intelligence point made earlier useless,
so to afford the normal back and fourth argument, it is better we stay out of the dark debate.

vaxx:
Assumption 1
which contradict the topic of discussion, there was clear separation.
THAT HE GAVE HIS BEGOTTEN SON do not sound as if it is the same person talking to himself,
in fact whoever wrote the entire that verse Whoever wrote John was not a trinitarian

vaxx:
It is a suggestion on the writer’s part that God does not choose to know the future.
because if indeed, he will have know how the game will play, Jesus was restored to cover that gap.
If God knew how that would come out, it would make the act of allowing it to happen into a cheap parlor trick, a sham.
No, only if God did not know how things would turn out could one say God gave anything.
so in the essence god did not give anything earlier according to the writer suggestion

vaxx:
Assumption 2,
all these your pseudo opinion does not correlate with the message the verse intend to pass,
we are dealing with the topic, the verse clearly indicate Jesus was sent BY GOD to the world to save souls from perishing,
whatever you are imputing now does not in any way correlate with the verse.
as i said earlier i will prefer we focus on the topic. lets address the verse .
instead of shifting around. i know you are finding it difficult to do.

vaxx:
ASSUMPTION 3,
you do not do better, still repeating the same earlier warning i gave... anyway if that will make you better.
THIS IS IS not the message john 3 vs 16 intend to pass. as it clearly stated.

vaxx:
christ is the begotten son of GOD that is what john 3 vs 16 stated

vaxx:
must GOD descend to earth before he pass his message

vaxx:
this your opinion here suggest god is not omnipresent.
what do you think?

vaxx:
this is your opinion, an innocent blood is demanded for the ransoms of sins of human since animal blood is not enough.
john 3 vs 16 clearly indicate that the only way to escape ''perish'' is to believe in GOD SON(JESUS CHRIST)

vaxx:
THIS IS NOT THE MESSAGE OF JOHN 3 VS 16.
IT IS AGAIN YOUR ASSUMPTION

vaxx:
Do you get your pseudo logic here, harm and pain was taken off GOD SO THAT GOD WILL NOT HAVE TO SUFFER

vaxx:
So we are dealing with morphology now, and not the grammatical sentence, good.

vaxx:
i will like you suggest the Greek word that best describe the world better,
at least it could make us understand the context clearly

vaxx:
but as it stands, an English speaker like me find it as it is begotten
and the word begotten in English grammar means possession
and it largely attribute to animal characteristics

vaxx:
i am still awaiting the better usage of English grammar that will better position that word in the context of the verse

vaxx:
good point raised there....
but if am to go by your your pseudo analysis here, you will realized you just shot yourself in the foot,
are you not the one claiming jesus was god and how come it is unique and one of its kind the time
or you mean GOD SEND HIS UNIQUE SON using the isaac and abraham analogy

vaxx:
do not be in an hurry,
i think you shot yourself on the foot with this abraham analogy.
you could have stick with the morphology

vaxx:
if i am to go by your logic here, i will conclude that the supposed ruler of the universe,
who could not think any better way to forgive his creations,
than send himself in human form to act as a human sacrifice is incompetent.
Just so those creations can get into heaven to worship this insecure deity for eternity

vaxx:
I find this God to be lacking in anything godlike

vaxx:
this is gibberish.
i do not hold sense out of it

vaxx:
you do no do any better except from that of the morphology

vaxx:
LOL the philosophical point of that verse stand out to be poor,
do you know what i deduce from it.
it is if you believe in God, then everlasting life is real
but if you don’t, even more terrible things await you.
Not much of a choice. this is clearly weak of theology.
sorry what you present so far are pseudo intellectual concept, i expect you do better than this in your next reply

vaxx:
and please try and add space to your write up,
i found it a bit cracky

MuttleyLaff:
Aside bible, the testimony of another witness(es) supporting a matter, is valued and appreciated by court of law
but hey, be my guest, if you prefer hard ball and dark debate

Please dont pick up a straw man
and let it be the last time you pull a straw-man stunt like this.
Who has talked about about trinity here?
Or who has talked about whether whoever that wrote John was a trinitarian?
Please

.

What?!

Are you familiar with the below statement:
He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel

It is called the Protoevangelium (i.e. derived from "proto" meaning "first" and euangelion meaning "gospel" or "good news)

Unless you're in denial, you know the implication of that statement.

That statement is not only a reference to the idea of a Messiah
but doubles up, also as, the first Messianic prophecy

That statement is the genesis of salvation history with fulfillment in Jesus Christ that the opening sentence of this thread and John 3:16 is all about.

God knew how things would turn out, and waited patiently for 4000 years, from the day that prophecy was made, before it came to pass or got fulfilled

It correlates,
because the One who sent and the Sent are One

If I dont do it that way, you wouldnt have dots to join, to see the picture

Yes it does

and "begotten" has hence earlier been explained

I know I can rely on you to make this a labour of love explanation
No, GOD doesnt need to descend to earth before He pass His message
but He needed to descend to earth in order to actualise or make a reality of the Protoevangelium

I

t is not an opinion, not my opinion
but is a fact, that God is Omnipresent
I dont think, instead I do know that,

God is Omnipresent

Repeating myself, God simultaneously can be in more than one place at a time (i.e. God can be in Heaven and on earth, at the same time)

Ah the blood
I spot you going to make this blood thing hard work here

If someone like you, that flirts with the idea of having some knowledge of blood/DNA,
doesnt know why an "innocent blood" is needed or demanded for the ransoms of sins of human beings since animal blood is not enough
then its now apparent its just a semblance you have
and you havent completely connected the dots, to see the full picture

That "innocent blood" is God, sacrificially giving Himself up, for the ransoms of sins of human.

The perpetual animal blood is not enough nor does it permanently solve the issue at hand,
which is sin committed from the beginning and original sin

I like how you diversify
at least you now call it "your assumption" instead of "your opinion"

I'll tell you what the message of John 3:16 is about

It is a message declaring God's love for all "mankind" which moved him to send His Son...
(i.e. that God loves the world...)

"Second
what type of Father sends his son into harms way?
A father doesn't put his son in harm's way
but he takes the harm and pain off his son so his son doesn't have to suffer"
- © vaxx

What then, did you mean by:
"... He takes the harm and pain off his son so his son doesn't have to suffer"
It is your pseudo logic, I was replaying back to you

The "harm", the "pain" and "suffer" were all prophesised
It was a bitter pill, and no one else came forward to take and swallow it except for God himself

God is infinite and non spatial
so let's settle instead for, we are dealing with physical projection
God, became God, the Father, after physically projecting Himself to earth as God, the Son, whom Jesus Christ is

It means what it says on the tin
The Greek world is "kosmos" and in the context it was used, "the inhabitants of the world" best describes its meaning

Well, sorry to burst your bubble
You need to understand it in the original composition language and not as an English speaker

And no, begotten, in this context, has nothing to do with animal characteristics

John 3:16, originally was written in Greek

The uniqueness of Isaac, originally was wriiten in Hebrew, so the Greek "monogene" was not used

The birth of Isaac is unique, one of a kind and as promised.
The birth of Jesus as well, equally is unique, one of a kind and as promised too

The birth of Jesus is unique and one of a kind,
because God, became God, the Father, after physically projecting Himself to earth, as God, the Son, whom Jesus Christ is

You're mistaking, if you think I shot myself in the foot with the Abraham analogy
Forget about morphology, that's a red herring
I only brought in Isaac because it has a slight similarity with "begotten" that you have misunderstood and misinterpreted

Let's just say
and accept that, there are rules, processess, laws and principles laid down by God that even He respects and abides by

Well it looks like you have a dim view of God then
What were you expecting God do?

Would you esteem it to be godlike enough of God
if God had plucked out a magic wand, waved it,
then saying abracadabra and everything suddenly turned hunky-dory?

Just store the "gibberish" into memory.
Sooner or later, all the info will come together and you'll make sense of them all.

As you want it

People die once, and after that they are judged
There is no injustice with God

Nothing and no one takes God by surprise
however everything and everyone are part of God's great eternal plan

God is solving a problem
and humans happen to be part of the solution package
Two for the price of one

I am only countering blow by blow, section by section, each, out of order comments, you made
I will space them, more out, then
but you too, dont post lengthy write-ups that will require long responses

MuttleyLaff:
The serious problem I observed, shown in this post, is, the certain quasi-knowledgeability that knows nothing
Furthermore, it is insulting to someone's intelligence, asking that contributors not quote biblical reference to support submitted posts

Though Jesus was God,
He did not think of equality with God, as something to cling to.
Instead, He gave up his divine privileges;
He took the humble position of a servant
and was born as a human being.
And so God appeared on earth, in human form, as Jesus Christ, His Son

God can send Himself, did send Himself to earth, in the form of Jesus Christ
God simultaneously can be in more than one place at a time (i.e. God can be in Heaven and on earth, at the same time)
Note Jesus didnt correct people that addressed Him, when saying: "My Lord, My God"

Christ is the visible image of the invisible God
What other logical way, effective, reasonable, legal and conventional means, did you expect God to send Himself to earth?

God was not and never was in harm's way, He couldnt handle
Its often said, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself
Something to be done right is exactly what it's all about and so what God did.
This is a matter of the classsic DIY

God looked for someone who could build walls
or stand in the breach in His presence on behalf of the world so that it won't be destroyed, but He found no one
so God is lumbered with, doing a classic Do-It-Yourself by sending Himself

I am sure you're joking that:
"harm and pain was taken off Jesus so Jesus doesn't have to suffer"

This will explain what the bible said and/or is saying
The word translated as "begotten", is the greek word "monogene"
"monogene", means, one and only or one of a kind

"monogene", is a combination of the root words:
"mono" (one or only) and "genos" (of a class or kind)
hence "begotten", in the context, or "monogene" means "the only of its kind"

It occurred also, when similarly used over Isaac,
where and when Isaac was referred to, as only son, even when Abraham already had an older son, Ishmael
Isaac was unique, was one and only or one of a kind son
Unique in the sense that, an impotent man and menopaused woman had a child, the promised son, Isaac (i.e. child in a class of its own)

Again, "begotten" in that context isn’t about procreation or some fantasied sexual intercourse

Facepalm. SMH. Tsk tsk tsk.

Very good question
The need, is for one "silver bullet"
and not million(s) of "silver bullet"
When Jesus, before bowing His head and giving up His spirit said: "It is finished"
The "It is finished" means "now accomplished"
It signifies a sense of finality, the effect of which continues into the present
The task and/or mission is accomplished, hence, there is no need for a million of Jesus Christ

Jesus, is the last Adam, and second man
The first man Adam became a living soul
Whereas, Jesus, the last Adam, became a life-giving spirit

The first man, is of the earth, earthy;
the second man, is from heaven.

Your emasculating wish is granted

Right.
Now there you have it.
"scholarly reply" without quoting biblical reference to support as you wished

PastorAIO, its turn by turn, I read where you and Ubenedictus used emmany and mutty in codes to mention Emmanystone and I,
and I laughed at how I got misconstrued but I will respond when you both, get to the front of the queue

MuttleyLaff:


PastorAIO, its turn by turn, I read where you and Ubenedictus used emmany and mutty in codes to mention Emmanystone and I,
and I laughed at how I got misconstrued but I will respond when you both, get to the front of the queue

vaxx:
thanks for derailing the post . I will be ready to take you serious when you stop using your bible verses and be ready to use the most important organ God has bless you with. your thinking faculty.

pls do not quote bible references . it is written plainly .

Ubenedictus:
I didn't call u in code, your username is fairly confusing I chose to shorten it.

PastorAIO:
I've just been made aware of this post.
I scrolled up and did not even see where I'd ever contributed to this thread talk less of quoting you,
and even lesser or leaster of quoting you in code

PastorAIO:
This is not even the kind of thread that I would engage in.

MuttleyLaff:

Bragger
One word - snotty
Two words - so conceited

PastorAIO:
Snotty. Definately not. I blow my nose quite thoroughly. And a take plenty of Vitamin C and Zinc.

Snooty. Perhaps. But everybody has their vibe and I will defend to the death my right to remain in my vibe/camp and not venture to issues that I have no interest in.

Conceited. A Conceit is a fantasy. Yes, I do have an imagination. What's your problem with that? And what bearing does that have on any thing I've said?

MuttleyLaff:
Snotty has a dual meaning

MuttleyLaff:
Snotty has a dual meaning

PastorAIO:
Snotty. Definately not. I blow my nose quite thoroughly. And a take plenty of Vitamin C and Zinc.

Snooty. Perhaps. But everybody has their vibe and I will defend to the death my right to remain in my vibe/camp and not venture to issues that I have no interest in.

Conceited. A Conceit is a fantasy. Yes, I do have an imagination. What's your problem with that? And what bearing does that have on any thing I've said?

MuttleyLaff:
Snotty has a dual meaning

PastorAIO:
Yet what bearing does it have ...?

MuttleyLaff:




The bearing of you being that stuck up, to remark that this is not even the kind of thread that you would engage in

MuttleyLaff:
I'll now go ahead tell an incident, to allay your misconception about what you seem to think I advocate, when you lumbered me with PastorAIO and Emmanystone on the "Des Pensees" thread

At least over 15 years ago, we were having a relaxed and easy-going chat at the home of the pastor where we used to fellowship.
The chit chat drifted to him narrating a situation involving him and some other parties over an issue
During the course of the conversation, the pastor friend threw in, like as in a matter of fact and case of frankness, that:
"you know, I just said it because you know, I can't lie..."

We left and upon getting back home, whilst in the bedroom, reliving the day's event, I asked my other half, and said:
Hang on, what was he trying to say?. Is he trying to imply he doesnt lie?. He doesnt ever lie?

My other half, smiled and then laughed, kikiki ki.

PS:Just that you know,
Though already fascinated by his action in 2013, on the day before Good Friday
but I am beginning to warm more to Jorge Mario Bergoglio because of what Eugenio Scalfari revealed, he in private, told him about hell.
Venerable Fulton J Sheen and Cardinal Francis Arinze too both intelligent and well informed too, I warm to

OK, you've been successful in forcing my hand to type against my better timing.

You wouldnt see where...
because your tete a tete with Ubenedictus, in the first place, wasnt on this thread

Bragger
One word - snotty
Two words - so conceited

PastorAIO:
But it is not.

PastorAIO:
You are the one that has dragged me here kicking and screaming

PastorAIO:
I'm even amazed that I'm still here.

Ubenedictus:
I remember the thread, I don't forget my post.

Ubenedictus:
there is no code there,
your names are confusing, I shortened it,
I assumed you were on the thread so you'll see the most

Ubenedictus:
it was addressed to 3 people about perfectionism

MuttleyLaff:
Good
and pleased to know you dont forget your posts

[img]https://s1/images/MuttHmm.gif[/img]
There is no code there, you say
but it no doubt was furtively done so PastorAIO, Emmanystone and I wouldnt know

Well, you've certainly by now, read me give an account of a firsthand experience with a "perfectionist"
(i.e. the story of the pastor pretending or impying he doesnt ever lie)
so I dont see how this your perfectionism has anything to do with me
nor in the first place, why ever, my moniker was listed with the 3 people addressed

Ubenedictus:

you guys were all on the thread, I shorten the 3 usernames, I am surprised you think I was referring to you in code in connivance with pastoraio, that is pretty surprising... are you Almighty God that I have to talk about in fear? I just don't get it.

I made a post in a thread where you guys are active and you think I was hiding it from you, aio responded without crying wolf about his username but you guys hold yourselves in such regard that to you a shorten username a a sign of ..... I just don't get it.


this is a post you made on that thread among others that made me wonder if your theology has a room for human failure among members of the body of Christ.
you wrote:


Yes, the best thing to do will be to leave the place
because they do not represent Christ there. But, leaving
a place like that, doesn't mean you should leave Christ,
because, none of those men are you model, Christ is.
And, as long as you didn't see any of their trait in
Christ, you follow He who called you to everladting life.
That's why we have a Bible. You don't throw in the
Towel and say, 'Christianity is a Farce', because Men
have become senseless.

there you and aio seemed to advocate leaving a congregation if sin if found there as if it was supposed to b perfect.
later you wrote

Anything less than practising pure and faultless
religion that God approves of, is not true and so
thereby is false religion

again the perfection of Christian living just without it flaws in human nature.

I responded cautiously saying I may b wrong about expounding your views...aio certainly felt that wasn't his view you on the other hand thinks I was gossiping about you in code. this is my post in question



I may be wrong but I see aio and emmany and mutty
speak of religion in its purest idealistic form and
anathemize anything that fall under and below and I
am almost tempted to ask if any of you guys live out
the religion you profess...
in my personal experience and in the experience of
those around me it isn't perfect, we fall under often,
in fact Catholics make a point of describing Christian
life as the personal workspace of the HOLY spirit
who constantly re-converts us, remake us and
remold us.... in fact the awareness that I am living in
Grace isn't the most interesting thing in my Christian
life, it is instead that act of falling down on my
kneels as God exposes parts of my life and attitudes,
behavior and thoughts I have falsely built and leads
me to a new path....that is for me one of the best
effects of grace.
living below what is perfect has not made me a
lesser Christian, it has led me forward it is part of
what is genuinely Christian, the Christian is not a
perfect product, in my experience he is God's work in
progress.
I don't agree with you guys that a Christian doesn't
steal, cheat, fornicate or commit sin, cos he does,
his benefit is simply the remaking, renewing and
converting power of the HOLY spirit. I have never
seen the Christian Church as a gathering of the
perfect, that is Calvinist, for me it is a hospital for
sinners, constantly healing and been healed....
I don't agree with this idea of perfection you guys
seem to advocate.

PastorAIO:
I smell some sort of paranoid delusion.

Ubenedictus:
you guys have been at each others throat for sometime now, I think he has confused me and you.

MuttleyLaff:


Thankfully your IP address got noted down so mental assessment teams can pay you a visit.

vaxx:
no my son is a different entity from me

danvon:
So according to you sending yourself and leaving your house and servants alone is the best solution

danvon:
You said we should remove Bible references

budaatum:

Why, of course. It's not like if you ate your son's supper your son would say "thank you daddy, I'm full now".

budaatum:

Ignore that, "remove bible" crap, danvon. No one can limit a discussion on a topic on such a basis.

Vaxx, you might as well have asked that people only use the right hand side of their brain!