[quote]Karado wrote:
Hey King Kai, Thx for your response, I work 10-12 hour days and I’m too
tired to respond here to your specific issues at the moment, AT LEAST You’re
open to point that Angels COULD have Sex,
[/quote]
They can, but they wont do the kinky stuff.
At least not with me.
No worries Orion, I’m sure there are prostitutes all over the Country
NAMED “Angel” who will obilige to your kinkiest fantasies in your general direction.
Just make sure you get the one that doesn’t look at her watch every 3 minutes.
[quote]Karado wrote:
No worries Orion, I’m sure there are prostitutes all over the Country
NAMED “Angel” who will obilige to your kinkiest fantasies in your general direction.
Just make sure you get the one that doesn’t look at her watch every 3 minutes.[/quote]
Well, the last one is a given, if you mind your manners, meaning if you are kind of a dick if they try to be a dick, and the rest is true.
That however is not what I was getting at.
As unlikely as it may sound, I am entirely able to get it up without there being any money involved.
That goes against all libertarian principles.
free sex is unfair competition.
You’re distorting the market.
[quote]kamui wrote:
That goes against all libertarian principles.
free sex is unfair competition.
You’re distorting the market. [/quote]
Not if it is freely given and I have to work like hell to get the job done?
“Free” is a rather relative term.
But yeah, all men pay for sex, and money is not the worst currency you could pay with.
[quote]kamui wrote:
That goes against all libertarian principles.
free sex is unfair competition.
You’re distorting the market. [/quote]
Also, I am not distorting the market one bit.
Anyone who has sex with me pays dearly, mwuahahahaha…
Ahem…
I’m at a loss. My mind is blown.
I prayed and I asked and I prayed some more…and He gave it to me…and now I’m not so sure I want it anymore. I understand now. Satan’s deception of the world is so complete that the world will never accept what I know, but I have to tell it anyway.
Maybe, just maybe you will believe me, through the facts in the scriptures, and the numbers, and through the Spirit, you will believe me. I have to do some double-checking and figuring out the fine details, but I will post it here. You have my word.
And before anybody asks; Yes, I’m completely serious.
The bad news is that Satan has indeed put The Light under a bushel.
The good news is that The Light still shines through.
Be patient with me. I have a lot of work to do. I love you all.
I have not had time to respond to all this because I have been preoccupied off the boards, but lemme ask you this. Are you saying that you have a prophetic message that Satan has blinded everybody except you to? And those who agree with you? I’m just asking.
JayPierce, your refusal to respond either to my post or my PM’s tells me that you are not interested in dialogue; you are not interested in having your own beliefs critiqued. I (and most others on here, I presume) are not interested in being lectured at by a cultist. So we are at an impasse.
Consequently, I am a bit torn. On the one hand, I don’t really want to go through the hassle of having to deal with each and every single one of the claims your brought up. It’s not the difficulty - it would be a fairly easy task - but rather the time commitment that puts me off. You wrote over 8 posts with a bunch of points and verses in each and every one of them, and you did not give anyone a chance to respond. That would be fine, if you were making new points. But since we already get the gist of your argument, asking us all to “be patient” is insulting.
On the other hand, your arguments are fundamentally flawed. Every. Single. One. And of course, you don’t realize that yet. And there is a part of me that cares enough to want to show you the flaws in your arguments.
Understanding, not prophetic visions.
As I was examining Paul and looking at the prophesies, I noticed some similarities between Israel, the prophecies of Daniel, and the Revelation.
Israel is the 1st beast in the Revelation.
Came out of the Red Sea
were feared by their opponents
given authority, power and their ‘throne’ by the dragon
had a king that was mortally wounded but was healed
the whole earth bowed and paid homage to them
spoke boasts and blasphemies
given authority to act for 42 months (the 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus)
blasphemed God and Heaven
The second beast is the Catholic Church.
Two horns like a lamb (appear to be Christ-like on the outside)
sounds like a dragon (teachings are contradictory to Christ)
exercises all authority of the first beast (same laws and requirements)
causes all the earth to worship the god of the first beast
whoever does not worship the image of the first beast was killed (holy wars)
The beasts name is the number of a man. The pope is a man. His earliest official title was the Vicar of the Son of God. In Roman, that’s:
V =5
I =1
C =100
A =0 (no value)
R =0
I =1
V =5
S =0
F =0
I =1
L =50
I =1
I =1
D =500
E =0
I =1
Add them up.
And if you do some historical research, Simon Peter was not the first pope. Paul started the church
The god of Israel is not The Father!!!. He sat in the temple and proclaimed himself to be God. The prophets tried to warn us, John tried to warn us, Jesus Christ practically screamed it.
But the deception was so complete that nobody ever thought of ‘god’s chosen’ as the war machine of the Devil.
If there is a way of saying this more charitably I am not aware of it. I reiterate yet again. I am not berating you JP. You are however so far off in the weeds that I am just about convinced that meaningful dialog is no longer possible if it ever was. Honest man. You are under a strong delusion. This is the worst kind of irresponsible hack n slash screw ballery possible.
The Father spoke to us through the Prophets.
The Deceiver acted on us through Israel.
Pray to The Father for understanding, and then think about these things:
Abraham was deceived into thinking he would have to sacrifice his own son
Isaac and Abraham both deceived the Philistines into thinking their wives were their sisters
Jacob deceived his father into giving him Esau’s birthright.
Why did Satan bless Jacob? “because you have struggled with God and with men and prevailed”. He was rewarded for his deception.
Jacob wife Rachel was a thief who stole right out of her father’s own house, and then lied as to why she wouldn’t get up off of the saddlebags she was hiding the loot in. Deception.
Jacob’s sons sold their brother Joseph into slavery and then deceived their father(to make a long story short)
The list goes on and on and on and on. Righteous men of the OT always lamented that wickedness was rewarded and righteousness was persecuted. They were right. Satan rewards sin.
John even gave us a clue at the end of his gospel’s prologue: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him”. All of the accounts of seeing God, or of God sitting on the mercy seat of the tabernacle, or of sitting in the temple passing judgments are deceptions
The Father also spoke through the Prophets that he dwells in heaven, not in man-made houses of brick and stone.
And just who admitted to causing the desolation of Israel? Their god, the abomination of desolation spoken of in Daniel’s prophesy, who literally [b]sat in the temple and proclaimed himself God[/i].
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I would like to say, first of all, that I do not take this lightly. It is just as serious a matter to me as my life. I know it is going to offend some of you, but hear me out. I am going to make the case for the Word of Christ without responding to any comments or criticisms until I am finished, and I have a lot to say over the next few days, so please bear with:
First, I thought it odd that Jesus would say to beware the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. I thought it was odd that he chose ‘yeast’, but I was taught that it meant their teachings and ways.
Then I noticed that when He was talking to the Pharisees, he specifically mentioned “the blind leading the blind”. And of course, we all know what that means, right?
[/quote]
So (implicit) argument so far…
Ok, now the argument goes…
Finally, we had the conclusion of this argument…
I think that’s essentially the point of your statements in this post. TIrib, is that a fair assessment?
Ok. I’m done. I could go on forever, but I’m sure I’ve posted enough points to convince those who will read it and try to understand.
I don’t know every little detail. I simply asked and received. I beg you to do the same.
I thank the Father forever and ever for blessing us with Christ. Without Him, the deception would never have been revealed.
Do you believe Jesus teaching is consistent with the old testament(I ask this because you criticize Paul when he is just quoting Joel where it says that anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.)
My previous post about Luke, Acts and Jesus sayings that are recorded in Paul’s letters and that some of Paul’s letters were composed before the Gospels were written as we know them.
When and how did you get to know Jesus? From what movement or where did you get the idea that Paul’s teaching/letters do not align with the Gospels(Luke and Acts too if you accept them).(Anti-Pauline sentiments seem to be popular on youtube and some forums.)
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< TIrib, is that a fair assessment?[/quote]It does seem to all flow from that premise.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:<<< My previous post about Luke, Acts and Jesus sayings that are recorded in Paul’s letters and that some of Paul’s letters were composed before the Gospels were written as we know them. >>>[/quote]Yes, Luke, NOT one of the twelve, but a writer of one of the GOSPELS this guy likes AND yes the acts of the apostles. In which is recorded the conversion of Saul of Tarsus later to be known as Paul the apostle along with entire sections of the book being dedicated to the missionary activities of this man Saul now Paul. A man mentioned by name as either Saul or Paul 149 times in this book of the acts of the apostles written by the same man Luke, personally associated with the gospel bearing his name. JayPierce loves the gospel, but hates acts both penned by the same man. JP also seems to believe Paul when he’s misinterpreting him to be a witness against himself but not when he’s asserting his apostleship or proclaiming magnificent weighty truths of the gospel. Utterly arbitrary and subjective misuse of ANY body of literature, nevermind the holy Christian Scriptures.
Also yes, the earliest gospel was probably Mark and Galatians and the Thessalonian epistles were written before that earliest of the gospels. There is absolutely NO consistent or reliable basis whatsoever for accepting the words of Jesus in Luke WHILE rejecting that same human source’s account of Paul in Acts. Every other thing JP is saying hinges on that type erroneous foundation.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< TIrib, is that a fair assessment?[/quote]It does seem to all flow from that premise.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:<<< My previous post about Luke, Acts and Jesus sayings that are recorded in Paul’s letters and that some of Paul’s letters were composed before the Gospels were written as we know them. >>>[/quote]Yes, Luke, NOT one of the twelve, but a writer of one of the GOSPELS this guy likes AND yes the acts of the apostles. In which is recorded the conversion of Saul of Tarsus later to be known as Paul the apostle along with entire sections of the book being dedicated to the missionary activities of this man Saul now Paul. A man mentioned by name as either Saul or Paul 149 times in this book of the acts of the apostles written by the same man Luke, personally associated with the gospel bearing his name. JayPierce loves the gospel, but hates acts both penned by the same man. JP also seems to believe Paul when he’s misinterpreting him to be a witness against himself but not when he’s asserting his apostleship or proclaiming magnificent weighty truths of the gospel. Utterly arbitrary and subjective misuse of ANY body of literature, nevermind the holy Christian Scriptures.
Also yes, the earliest gospel was probably Mark and Galatians and the Thessalonian epistles were written before that earliest of the gospels. There is absolutely NO consistent or reliable basis whatsoever for accepting the words of Jesus in Luke WHILE rejecting that same human source’s account of Paul in Acts. Every other thing JP is saying hinges on that type erroneous foundation.
[/quote]
Paul’s letters actually likely pre-date ALL the gospels, including Mark. More on that point later
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Paul’s letters actually likely pre-date ALL the gospels, including Mark. More on that point later[/quote]Well yes, I said Mark was likely the earliest and hence the Galatian and Thessalonian epistles predate all the gospels. Unless you’re saying that all the Pauline epistles predate all the gospels?