Religion II

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How many persons does it take to comprise a group?

Just yourself, apparently per you.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I didn't say that. That's your insane interpretation. Do you know what the Bereans were noted for in Acts 17? (Well, whether you do or not, is irrelevant.) But I'm like them.

Idiotic response require insane interpretations. Just like your current idiotic response.

You claim to be personally taught be Paul of Tarsus and Silas?


My question.

Is it interpretations of John Piper, of Mark Driscoll, of Al Mohler, and Justin Taylor, all of them, someone else or a combination of them?



And you respond your someone else is Paul of Tarsus and Silas. You claim they personally teach you as the did in Acts to the Bereans.

Do you have a preacher(s) in your little world besides being personally taught be Paul and Silas?

I guess the real question is how old are you?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Idiotic response require insane interpretations. Just like your current idiotic response.

You claim to be personally taught be Paul of Tarsus and Silas?


My question.

Is it interpretations of John Piper, of Mark Driscoll, of Al Mohler, and Justin Taylor, all of them, someone else or a combination of them?



And you respond your someone else is Paul of Tarsus and Silas. You claim they personally teach you as the did in Acts to the Bereans.

Do you have a preacher(s) in your little world besides being personally taught be Paul and Silas?

I guess the real question is how old are you?

Thanks for playing and proving my point. You truly don't know what the Bereans were noted for. According to your inane questions about Paul and Silas, the Bereans were noted for who preached to them, instead of how they responded to their preaching?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Just yourself, apparently per you.

Thanks for your "non-responsive answer". (Forgive the contradictory response as I have forgiven a multitude of yours.)

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Thanks for playing and proving my point. You truly don't know what the Bereans were noted for. According to your inane questions about Paul and Silas, the Bereans were noted for who preached to them, instead of how they responded to their preaching?

I know what they are noted for, being receptive to the teaching of Paul and Silas. To be like them you have to be personally taught by Paul and Silas. If you are not personally taught by Paul and Silas it is impossible for you to be like them.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Thanks for your "non-responsive answer". (Forgive the contradictory response as I have forgiven a multitude of yours.)

If you give non-responsive answers to every question, what right or special privilege do you have to receive responsive answers to your questions?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I know what they are noted for being receptive to the teaching of Paul and Silas. To be like them you have to be personally taught by Paul and Silas. If you are not personally taught by Paul and Silas it is impossible for you to be like them.

So, what made them noteworthy from the hosts of others who responded positively to the preaching of Paul and Silas?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

No you missed it due to your lack of reading comprehension and perhaps your senilityThe Parable of the Mustard Seed is self contained.Why go back to an Old Testament tale a product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BC)?

Once again it is you and other violators of the Jewish OT in order to "see" Christ prophesied when Jewish interpretations see only Jewish mythology and NO Jesus?

As I said stick to the Parable of the Mustard Seed. But you can not due to your literal nonsense and lack of understanding of the metaphorical implications.

After all that's what the Parables in the NT were all about.

The Mustard seed gets planted in the inner man.

Why do I go back? Because the Kingdom of God is a huge topic in the bible -- in both OT and New! And any text in the bible must be understood in its three-fold context, including different books in the bible. It's not as though I referenced irrelevant texts. After all, whatever Jesus taught about the kingdom, he conveyed his understanding of all that had been revealed previously to Israel in the OT. And what had had gone before will not contradict newer revelation.

[Show Me the Wire]

I think it is fair to assume, boxcar that you are not being personally taught, like the Bereans, by Paul and Silas.

I know you have a building your community uses as a church. Do you have a minister, ordained or not, or some preacher who preaches in your community's church building? Does his/hers sermons interpret Scripture? Do you give a flip about his/hers teachings about the Scripture or are you still claiming Paul and Silas personally teach you.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, what made them noteworthy from the hosts of others who responded positively to the preaching of Paul and Silas?

What made them noteworthy has nothing to do with my question about your current teachers. Are you being personally taught by Paul and Silas.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Do not quote examples of grammar regarding pronoun usage and their meaning, as a definition. Also, how do you define mankind?[/b]

The why can't I use examples since you used the stupid one about Calvin being THE driver of a car.

The much better question is: How do you define "mankind" since "man" can be used as a synonym?

The question is do you agree with Calvin that the Christ dwells in the hearts of individual men, individuals who are partakers of the Holy Spirit? I guess, in your speak, the question is Calvin correct in teaching that Christ dwelling distributively in men.

This is not the original question you asked me in 3605. Again, Here is the original question in your 3605:

Simple question boxcar, requiring a simple yes of no answer. Understanding that Calvin's commentary does not apply to the reprobates and deniers, is Calvin's teaching correct, does Christ dwell in man? Let your yes be yes and your no be no.

You see how duplicitous you are?

We are waiting for a responsive answer.

"We"? You have a sewer-dwelling, flea-infested rat in your pocket? Oh yeah...and if Hcap shares the same pocket with your furry buddy, be kind to him and get him de-flead.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

What made them noteworthy has nothing to do with my question about your current teachers. Are you being personally taught by Paul and Silas.

That's not what made them noteworthy. Refer back to my question that I asked about what the Bereans were noted for. Besides, I can't be just like them in terms of their specific teachers or preachers, can I? But of course, you're crazy enough to ask me how old I am, anyway.

You are totally shot!

[Show Me the Wire]

BTW boxcar, being receptive to the word is no guarantee.

20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet such a person has no root, but endures only for a while, and when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, that person immediately falls away.[c] Matthew 13:20-21.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

BTW boxcar, not surprising though you are using the term "qualifier" incorrectly.

A qualifier in English grammar, is a word or phrase (such as very) that precedes an adjective or adverb, increasing or decreasing the quality signified by the word it modifies. We do not use qualifiers on common nouns. Grammatically, "man" is a common noun, not a verb.

Common nouns are modified by adjectives. You are one confused individual, no wonder why you have problems comprehending written text. I guess this explains your inability to digest what is written in a post and why you respond to posts, as you do.

There truly is a failure to communicate. You do not understand basic grammar. Is English your first language?

You really need to take some time off. You love to wax as an English expert, yet in the process only make a utter fool of yourself. A qualified statement is analogous to a conditional one -- in that both types of statements impose some kind of limit or restriction on a noun or verb. And a qualified statement can consist of a one word qualifier or a complete phrase. Permit a biblical example, please. But first an example of an unqualified statement.

Suppose Ps 32:10b read along these lines:

...but the Lord's unfailing love surrounds man.

Here there is no restriction or limit imposed upon God's love. It surrounds "man" or mankind -- as in everyone in the distributive sense. But the text in the Psalm actually reads:

Ps 32:10
10 Many are the woes of the wicked,
but the Lord's unfailing love
surrounds the man who trusts in him.
NIV

Both the definite article "the" and the phrase "who trusts in him" qualify the object of God's unfailing love. In this text, it limits or restricts God's love to a specific kind of man -- not just any man -- not to "man", distributive sense. So, you see in grammar, we very often qualify verbs or nouns. In the text above, the object of God's love is qualified because it's limited to a specific kind of "man" (common noun) -- the restriction is to the man "who trusts in him".

When you used "man" twice in your 3605 (a term Calvin did NOT use), you did not qualify either term. You used the term in an unqualified sense.

Live, love it and learn it.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Did you use an adverb? No. Did you use a phrase to qualify the verb? No. You made an unconditional claim and then you lied about using a modifier. If you don't know what adverb or qualifying phrase to use that is your problem, not mine. If you don't understand how to convey your thoughts in writing don't post. problem solved.

You [sic] stilled lied about using any type of modifier.

First off, I never claimed what you said, Deceiver! Secondly, why should I have modified the verb "discover", inf the first place? And thirdly, you still haven't answered my question: How would you, genius, have modified the verb "discover" to signify that Calvin was only A discoverer of the true gospel.