THE TABERNACLE of His body

Status
Not open for further replies.
Something being relious in nature doesnt automaticaly associate it with any given doctrine or religion. Your poor desire for confrontation is offending people. Stop it.

As far as the verse you quote... (Mark14:60-63) The ealiest known manuscripts are in Greek, not Hebrew. And being the main language of the time it's quite likely that much of this was not only recorded in greek but also spoken in that language to start with.

That Aside, The issue was that when askedif he was "Christ, son of the blessed one" he said yes. Hardly something that could be considered speaking the Lords name in vain.

It seem to me you are stretching the definition of YHWh to fit somewhere it doesnt. He isnt saying he's God at all. When asked He says "I am" He is not referencing the Definition of Gods name from Exodus 3:14 (I am that I am in the American Standard version (KJ too I believe). Its a straight forward reply to their question. They ask him if he's Gods son and He says I am. If your going to turn it all into a debate about the nature of God and of the Son (like I supspected from the start and like others noticed too about your condescending attitude) don't bother. If a person wants to debate the Trinity or Use of the cross there are more straightforward and productive ways to Go about it then trying to somehow Pretend that your enlightenment allows you to read and understand things that may or may not be apparent to others. But seriously, that scripture aside, there are many more scriptures that need better discusion regarding the Trinity (or if you don't include the Holy Ghost/ Spirit: the Divinity of Christ and whether or not Mary is therefore the mother of God.)

Pride before fall buddy. I make no claims regarding my own holiness (relatively speaking atleast in comparison to God and Jesus). Don't forget this important scripture: John 3: 19-21:"Now this is the basis for judgment, that the light has come into the world but men have loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. 20~For he that practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, in order that his works may not be reproved. 21~But he that does what is true comes to the light, in order that his works may be made manifest as having been worked in harmony with God.”"

Stop concealing your intentions.

Now if you want to talk about it normally contact me by another means cause I'm not responding to this thread after this.
 
This is fun.

You know, Saphir7, the act of communication takes place when you want to share your ideas with someone else. Using such a cryptic language doesn't get you a long way through that road, IMO - and the fact that I too am longing for a choripan and willing to write it down in my post, proves it - I don't get a thing you're saying, other than a few bits which, at least for me, were obvious.

My guess is, you're trying to discuss the crucifiction from a historian's POV - the facts, not the religion. But your language clearly says otherwise: you talk like a real preacher. You should try to match the language to the intention or the way around, otherwise people simply won't understand.
 
Guys...it's a bot. Look at every single response it's made, it always starts "Hi, [insert random user posted above], wrote [same random user posted above] etc."

It never responds directly to what you said, notice how it completely ignored the simple question that someone asked which WC game ended the Kilrathi-Terran war. Even a simple, "I don't know" would signify a real person. This is a joke...no need to try and reason with ti.
 
I just read some of the entries this guy has put in. I agree that it is off-topic and everything but damn i thought i was wierd when it comes to talkin about non relevant issues...the dude is what !@#$
*scratches his head*
 
I don't know. If it's a bot, it's a bot that knows when to get offended. You are right about the formulaic response most of the time, but there are a few times that it doesn't respond like a bot. It understands things in context, but replies in a cryptic way. It knows how to pull out specific quotes from other writers in a coherent manner (though this may be the only coherent thing it does).

So, I tend to think it isn't a bot, but I may be wrong. Although I would like to challenge it to prove that.
 
Maj.Striker said:
Guys...it's a bot. Look at every single response it's made, it always starts "Hi, [insert random user posted above], wrote [same random user posted above] etc."

It never responds directly to what you said, notice how it completely ignored the simple question that someone asked which WC game ended the Kilrathi-Terran war. Even a simple, "I don't know" would signify a real person. This is a joke...no need to try and reason with ti.
Click to expand...


ya, its definately a bot, and not a wing commander fan.
 
I don't know. Check out this quote from earlier on the page:

Was the lamb indicted by Roman laws? - All I hoped from people was a simple answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’: that is my purpose; That is the reason I am posting in a Non-re’Legion Forum.

You perhaps would respond ‘yes’, because your words do demonstrate that you don’t care about the Tabernacle of His body.

You, perhaps, are of Him; but if you were of Him, then you would care, because I wrote about Tabernacle of His body. And you would have understanding to find out that I am not a bot nor a psychotic.

Wrote “..The methods you are using right now don't seem to be working very well..”

Methods for what? I already said; this is not a teaching; not a preaching; has nothing to do with ‘through faith’ not even ‘through believing’;

In this, he was actually responding to me, including to some specific concerns I voiced about him. He shows that he is offended, and attacks me. This shows contextual understanding of what I wrote to him. That's pretty advanced AI, if it is AI. I'm not convinced that he's a bot yet.
 
Hi Sapphir7,

A quick look at the scriptures will certainly confirm what you have written. The Law given to the children of Israel was that anyone found guilty of blasphemy was to be hung[suspended] from a tree and then stoned to death. Now, obviously, the lamb wasn't stoned to death, but neither was he nailed to a cross. Would the Most High go against his very own Law and allow his firstborn to be condemned by a law that isn't from himself?

In regards to atonement of sin, how were the lambs and other offerings sacrificed..by fire. But this lamb didn't die by fire from man, but from the Most High himself.


And although I addressed Sapphir7 by the username and said Hi, that doesn't make me a bot...does it?
 
I understand, Klauss, what you’ve pointed out ‘that I should try to match the language to the intention’. - On the other hand, by matching the language to the intention, I would be invalidating the laconic factor which spiritually is the basic property of the prophetic language. You wrote that you don't get a thing I'm saying, because you would have to retain the prophetic codes [parables/illustrations] from the book Revelations and the completeness, the fullness of the books of the scriptures. Then, after a time, by retaining that spiritual prophetic language, in most of the texts that you write, you would sound like it is not you who is saying; I mean, about 70% of what you say would belong to texts of the Scriptures and to the living Word that became flesh. And what type of artificial intelligence would one be deemed [?] by doing what the lamb said to us to do; by keeping/retaining 100% of [His] eternal words.



Wrote: “..Using such a cryptic language doesn't get you a long way through that road..”


Once upon an initial time of a spiritual war, centuries ago, such laconic language was required in order to not offend people’s believings; also, in order to not sound like attacking or causing damages to the defenses of the false masters’ wall[a doctrinary wall] and of the beast[doctrine] and of the false prophet[theology]. If you had to let it loud and clear that the sign[cicatrized sign] of the beast[doctrine like a leopard] is the sign belonging to the doctrine of a first ecclesiastic power; and to the ordinations of a spiritual ministry through which the habitants of the earth had been receiving the sign/cicatrized mark of the bestiae with the right hand at the height of the forehead, then you would be careful. You would write using such laconic language in order to not offend the believings of the people.



Eternal words/ “Woe to you *scribes and Priests because you build on the place where the prophets were killed, and by doing so you hide the grave of the righteous" - *scribes [definition] ; spiritually; “*who ever pens the Scripture by applying it into a systematic study which in these days is called ‘theology’, as if the eternal words would depend upon being submissive to a particular branch of learning, like in a classroom setting, in order to be listened and understood”.] And for that, centuries ago, an investigation has been eclipsed by the following stretch of words found in the version that belongs to the pen of today’s scribes and to the ordinations of the spiritual ministry of the false prophet [theology]:

"Woe to you scribes and pharisees Priests that build on the sepulchres of the Prophets and reclothe the graves of the righteous"

And the false prophet[theology] has also prospered by replacing the reality [the word ‘particular’] for the version of the reality [the word ‘private’], as it is viewed in a certain place:

‘no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation..’

Eclipsed/ ‘no prophecy of Scripture is of particular interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man’.



by Sapphir.
 
Sapphir-7

While I respect your right to opinions, prehaps let me make a suggestion. This is a Wing Commander oriented forum, and generally most of our members are fans of that series. If you wish to voice your religious concerns, prehaps a more religion oriented forum could suit you.
 
That confirms it. It isn't a bot. And although I am tempted to refute his claims about prophetic language, I won't be responding to him anymore. I suggest that we all adopt silence as our response if this is going to be his modus operandi.

Even without a ban, it will end if we all stop posting.
 
U missing something?

Sapphir7,

You see, the total quantification of the circumcision, theologically speaking, can be quantifiably indoctrified by the obviousness of a certain finalitude of said "facts", quote, unquote. But to formerly address ANY otherwise unaddressable realasizm would only confound the UNobviousness of these very statements that have now been conjunctified, FORMERLY, I might add, into a complete telemetry that can only produce uneveness-ss-ss (sp.?) , and henceforth an utter breakdown in quantifiable communicativeability.

There. Now you're not the only one in the thread that we don't understand.
 
Sphynx said:
That confirms it. It isn't a bot.

Even without a ban, it will end if we all stop posting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if we all talk about not posting anymore for a few dozens posts, maybe we'll stop. It was also obviously not a "bot" to begin with, whatever that is.
 
Another Turing test failure. The program that generated Sapphir7's posts was pretty funny, hopefully AI will improve in the future to really pass the turing test.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top