It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
is it or is it not?
Originally posted by HIFIGUYI can assure you that Biblical doctrine is indeed divinely inspired. And while the words may not be exact, * they are damm close.
First, I wish to point out that you are yet to show where I said the church fathers said what you said I said they said. Avoidance is a great sign of weakness donkey, you have been allotted three chances to provide same and have failed at all. Peter redux?
Originally posted by Balaams donkey
Somewhere, Nice use of ACE, showing your true colors.
Whatever you need tell yourself.
Nice use of ACE, showing your true colors.
Am I surprised? You are still convulsing over your being stymied with your explanation as to your church fathers’ comment.
Well my friend, I could not find any logic, meaning or support for your claims in your post…
I am either crushed by this un-wellness comment or I deem it to be one of evasion put forth by someone who has no intellectual response and must then resort to petty insult to hide his embarrassment. Considering that I am very certain it is the latter, I am not surprised at the response I elicit.
I think maybe you are not well in the head. I would think someone so highly educated could put forth a clear statement, rather than babble
Now that is telling. If that is what you perceive yourself to be, then I would suggest the “not well in the head” is your view of your own countenance.
I mean, it should not be hard for you to show everyone the fruit of your education, as you are doing battle with a donkey.
I have now indulged your platitudes for not only several posts but several witless comments thus far on this. Obviously you have no rebuttals and choose instead fatuous commentary with which to mask your absence of countering argument.
Nevertheless, it is interesting that you argue from authority, your own no less, rather than reason. Not only this, but you have run wide quite wide of the boundaries, of the topic, showing your inability to stay on target, and proving the strength of my point.
Ah, a new diversion, fine. No I do not blaspheme her for no reason, it is first and foremost for you to show why I blaspheme her, and since you cannot, let me drive my point home. Marianme was no virgin, nor was she the mother of any begotten son of God. At best, she was a woman, and he a deluded man who had no compunction to slay his fellow Jews.
You blaspheme the Most Holy Mother of God,
Not good enough donkey. Prove your point. It is either you have something of substance to offer or nothing at all, for such dismissal is vacuous.
You claim Clement is a liar, without reason.
Very good question, the first you have proffered in fact. I am one who is far more knowledgeable than you in all things biblical plus some. I know this because I have reduced you to blathering avoidance of the topic at hand, such that the usual tactic when one cannot respond cognitively to the topic, is then forced to counter with superficial attacks to the poster. That would be you, donkey, in case you are in doubt of whom I speak. I do not portray myself as an ass or any other animal, such stupidity is best left for those who wallow in an inferiority complex with a bent toward sarcasm.
You even went so far as to say, who is St. John the Evangelist? If this is the case, then who might you be,
I have no need to have anyone advise me that my words cause others to think donkey, I see it in the posts. Read my signature, I am not here to think for anyone, but I am here with the hope that I cause others to think, and when I see my thoughts reflected elsewhere, or that they have given rise to questions, I am pleased with my performance.
that anyone listen to you?
somewhere:
Id offer to the following conclusion: That damm book has caused more wars in the name of self righteousness, and *its time we toss the thing...
Not good enough donkey. Prove your point. It is either you have something of substance to offer or nothing at all, for such dismissal is vacuous.
First, I wish to point out that you are yet to show where I said the church fathers said what you said I said they said. Avoidance is a great sign of weakness donkey, you have been allotted three chances to provide same and have failed at all. Peter redux?
somewhereinbetween Post Number: 1267965 (post id: 1289858) quote
What you witness is a decided late 1st century addition of his genealogy to show the Jews that Jesus was their messiah. It was not until well into the 2nd century that Jesus was actually being painted as the begotten son of god, and, or, word. Hence, the conflicting account. The majority of Jews did not fall for the Davidic line, so the redactors and church fathers carried on with his divine conception to woo the gentiles outside of Jerusalem.
When one follows the writings of the EARLY CHRUCH FATHERS, where one is well acquainted with the NT, it can clearly be seen the additions to the 4 gospels, as well as a correlation to the surfacing of the epistles addressing the issues as the debate raged.
have no basis in fact and were obviously tossed out because of your discombobulated thinking.
I have read volumes of the Early Church Fathers, they say no such thing…
A tip for you donkey; telling someone they have lied carries no weight, you must prove they have lied, to do anything else is to just spout rhetoric in the hopes of shouting down your opponent. Your defense is not just weak, it is as I have already told you, fatuous.
Originally posted by Balaams donkeyyou are incorrect in the promotion of lies, but a least you hang in there. Most people give up when they are incorrect.
Now, you and your fellows have lost, you will never quit your bickering, as it is all you have. Everyone here has seen the emptiness of your arguments.
No one has brought forth any reason, as to"...he can not be both..." thus, the claim once again, has been proven true that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, born of a Virgin from the house of David.
On the contrary, it is Christianity claiming he is both, it is up to Christianity to prove that he is both. You cannot save to say that he is, which is met with he is not. You have no proof and you have no logic to back this assertion, whereas I have logic to back mine: God is god, the creator, master, all powerful. Your story goes that he sent some mortal into a small territory to claim he was in fact God. This mortal ran and hid when he was hunted. Does God have a need to do this? Your god is an impotent god, for were he the real God all he had to do to prove himself was to appear simultaneously to every nation at that time, declare in a loud and thundering voice who he was and why man should be beholden to him. But no, your impotent god was too stupid to do this.
Originally posted by Balaams donkey
Bob & Somewhere....you are supposed to prove ".... he cannot be both..".