Again, you are merely asserting an opinion, with no evidence to prove why canon is incorrect.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Again, you are merely asserting an opinion, with no evidence to prove why canon is incorrect.

---

My point is, and my example I gave, shows your faith is built upon taking OT scripture out of context - just what you accuse 47 of doing.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Again, you are merely asserting an opinion, with no evidence to prove why canon is incorrect.

---

My point is, and my example I gave, shows your faith is built upon taking OT scripture out of context - just what you accuse 47 of doing.

---

No, because the opinion I hold is one built up by centuries of critical analysis and debate. You are free to ignore it, but pretending Waco's social justice has the academic rigor of even the Council of Nicea is dishonest and lazy.

"KOT"

How does one dialogue with such dismissiveness?
Is your intent to shut one up, to continue dialogue or to prove a person wrong or to brag to your friends that you " owned or destroyed a liberal."
Maybe another choice?
But you did not succeed.
Or is it that you really have no rational thoughts based on dialogue, wisdom, fact, or logic?

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Again, you are merely asserting an opinion, with no evidence to prove why canon is incorrect.

---

My point is, and my example I gave, shows your faith is built upon taking OT scripture out of context - just what you accuse 47 of doing.

---

Yep. Thank you

Waco1947 said:

---

"KOT"

How does one dialogue with such dismissiveness?
Is your intent to shut one up, to continue dialogue or to prove a person wrong or to brag to your friends that you " owned or destroyed a liberal."
Maybe another choice?
But you did not succeed.
Or is it that you really have no rational thoughts based on dialogue, wisdom, fact, or logic?

---

You haven't the faintest clue as to what thread he was referring. As to my dismissiveness of you, you are a prowling wolf that picks and chooses scripture to suit your own worldview and are never to be taken seriously. Don't you have babies to abort somewhere?

Yoak : "Howling Wolf"
How does one dialogue with such dismissiveness?
Is your intent to shut one up, to continue dialogue or to prove a person wrong or to brag to your friends that you " owned or destroyed a liberal."
Maybe another choice?
But you did not succeed.
Or is it that you really have no rational thoughts based on dialogue, wisdom, fact, or logic?

"You are So stupid." Says Shooter

How does one dialogue with such dismissiveness?
Is your intent to shut one up, to continue dialogue or to prove a person wrong or to brag to your friends that you " owned or destroyed a liberal."
Maybe another choice?
But you did not succeed.
Or is it that you really have no rational thoughts based on dialogue, wisdom, fact, or logic?

Waco1947 said:

---

"You are So stupid." "You are a groot ." Says Shooter

How does one dialogue with such dismissiveness?
Is your intent to shut one up, to continue dialogue or to prove a person wrong or to brag to your friends that you " owned or destroyed a liberal."
Maybe another choice?
But you did not succeed.
Or is it that you really have no rational thoughts based on dialogue, wisdom, fact, or logic?

---

Evil.

TexasScientist said:

---

(I had some kind of glitch and could not post direct to your thread comment above)

Oldbear83 said:
Also, you did not bother to even cite the scriptures you mean, which leaves your argument hollow and without any logical support.

If you want to understand something, it has to be put in its proper context. A classic example of where NT writers attribute OT prophecy out of context is where the writer of Matthew 1:23 not only mistranslated Isaiah 7:14., but also interprets it out of context. The proper and correct translation Is. 7:14 is "The Lord himself will give you a sign. A young woman (Alma) (Bethulah is the Hebrew for virgin) is with child and she will bear a son etc." When the writer of Matthew quoted the verse he did not quote the original Hebrew, but instead he used a Greek translation of the Hebrew scripture which incorrectly substituted a Greek word (Parthenos) which meant a woman who was a virgin. That wasn't what the original Hebrew meant.

Above and beyond that, the writer of Matthew's context is completely different from the context of Isaiah chapters 7 and 8. From those chapters it is clear the prophet is not predicting the coming of the messiah. Rather, his meaning is clear. The king of Judah is concerned about eminent war with Israel and Syria. Isaiah comes to Ahaz and delivers the prophecy that a young woman who is already with child will give birth to a child, and that before the child is old enough to know good from evil, Israel and Syria will withdraw, leaving Judah safe.

The writer of Matthew completely changed the context to further his own agenda. Everything in Matthew's birth narrative is about the fulfillment of prophecy - born in Bethlehem while from Nazareth, escape to Egypt from Herod, virgin birth. He wanted to show that Jesus' birth was fulfillment of a divine plan through the fulfillment of prophecy.

---

You have a narrow and one-dimensional understanding of prophecy.

What Matthew saw in those OT passages was a double fulfillment of prophecy- first an initial fulfillment, and then it's complete fulfillment at a future time. Matthew was not extricating the meaning of the prophecy from its initial context in Ahaz's time and applying it solely to Jesus, thus "taking it out of context". His revelation was that God's prophecy given to Ahaz, though relevant and applicable to the time it was given, still yet carried a future, deeper, hidden, and much more profound fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

God's prophecy of Jesus was carried out in this way in scripture. Instead of giving the prophecy plainly, directly, and in one place, he decided to give it in bits and pieces, in hints and "types", and scatter it throughout the Old Testament. The prophecy of the messiah was revealed, yet it was hidden.

Does God really do this? Yes, according to what he himself tells us:

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2

Ironically, this is probably why the Israelites didn't recognize Jesus as their Messiah and rejected him. They were expecting a lion, but didn't know that the prophecies said he was to be a lamb first. A lamb to be sacrificied. They were expecting a conquering King, not the "despised man of sorrows" of Isaiah 53.

Even Jesus' disciples missed it. Two disciples on the road to Emmaus were questioning this very thing, and Jesus appeared to them and told them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" Then, look what Jesus did next after he said this- "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself" - Luke 24:25-27. The prophecy was all there, in the entire Old Testament, but it was disguised, hidden to even the disciples, until Jesus opened their eyes to see it. And when they heard it, they KNEW it to be true - "Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?" they said to each other.

Was Jesus taking all those prophecies "out of context" to fit himself? No, I think not. As the two disciples on the road to Emmaus realized, Jesus WAS the ultimate context! When Matthew remembers Isaiah's prophecy in chapter 7, this is exactly what he realized.

By the way, I believe Psalm 40:7 was a foretelling of Jesus trying to make these very declarations to his people Israel, who did not understand and who would not listen:

"Here I am, I have come-- it is written about me in the scroll!"

He is still making this declaration today, now to the whole world as well as Israel, and those who have a heart for God will see it; those who don't, won't.

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"You are So stupid." "You are a griot." Says Shooter

How does one dialogue with such dismissiveness?
Is your intent to shut one up, to continue dialogue or to prove a person wrong or to brag to your friends that you " owned or destroyed a liberal."
Maybe another choice?
But you did not succeed.
Or is it that you really have no rational thoughts based on dialogue, wisdom, fact, or logic?

---

---

LOL

I never said you were a "griot"... LOL

The fact that you didn't get it, means that you might be a dinosaur.

"Groot" a fictional bumbling superhero

How does one dialogue with such dismissiveness?
Is your intent to shut one up, to continue dialogue or to prove a person wrong or to brag to your friends that you " owned or destroyed a liberal."
Maybe another choice?.
Do you have rational thoughts based on dialogue, wisdom, fact, or logic?

Waco1947 said:

---

"Groot" a fictional bumbling superhero

How does one dialogue with such dismissiveness?
Is your intent to shut one up, to continue dialogue or to prove a person wrong or to brag to your friends that you " owned or destroyed a liberal."
Maybe another choice?.
Do you have rational thoughts based on dialogue, wisdom, fact, or logic?

---

Since all you understand is repeated nonsense:



Waco,
How does one dialogue with such idiocy?
Is your intent to shut one up, to continue verbal diarrhea or to prove your lack of intelligence or to brag to your friends that you "opened your mouth and confirmed your stupidity".
Maybe another choice?
But you did not succeed.
Or is it that you really have no rational thoughts based on dialogue, wisdom, fact, or logic?

Waco1947 said:

---

"Groot" a fictional bumbling superhero

How does one dialogue with such dismissiveness?
Is your intent to shut one up, to continue dialogue or to prove a person wrong or to brag to your friends that you " owned or destroyed a liberal."
Maybe another choice?.
Do you have rational thoughts based on dialogue, wisdom, fact, or logic?

---

Actually...Groot helped save the universe at least 3 times.

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Groot" a fictional bumbling superhero

How does one dialogue with such dismissiveness?
Is your intent to shut one up, to continue dialogue or to prove a person wrong or to brag to your friends that you " owned or destroyed a liberal."
Maybe another choice?.
Do you have rational thoughts based on dialogue, wisdom, fact, or logic?

---

Actually...Groot helped save the universe at least 3 times.

---

So Shooter was complimenting me? My apologies then.

Waco1947 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Groot" a fictional bumbling superhero

How does one dialogue with such dismissiveness?
Is your intent to shut one up, to continue dialogue or to prove a person wrong or to brag to your friends that you " owned or destroyed a liberal."
Maybe another choice?.
Do you have rational thoughts based on dialogue, wisdom, fact, or logic?

---

Actually...Groot helped save the universe at least 3 times.

---

So Shooter was complimenting me? My apologies then.

---

Ha Ha. No. Groot wasn't bumbling.

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Groot" a fictional bumbling superhero

How does one dialogue with such dismissiveness?
Is your intent to shut one up, to continue dialogue or to prove a person wrong or to brag to your friends that you " owned or destroyed a liberal."
Maybe another choice?.
Do you have rational thoughts based on dialogue, wisdom, fact, or logic?

---

Actually...Groot helped save the universe at least 3 times.

---

So Shooter was complimenting me? My apologies then.

---

Ha Ha. No. Groot wasn't bumbling.

---

But...but.... he called me Groot!

Dusty l
I did not say you denied the bodily resurrection. I said that you denied the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. You made this distinction in an earlier thread, and your denial is on record. You denied that Jesus' dead, crucified body was raised from his tomb on the third day."
Apparently you did not read I Corinthians 15. That's a bodily resurrection and it applies to Jesus.
Paul said it, not me it's Paul's faith. Take it up with him.
PS Jesus lived, suffered, died and "rose" Or "was raised" from the tomb in a body like Oaul said it would be.

Yet he never dicked a man in the ass.

How great thou art. How great thou art.