DonnyTJS

Took me a while to figure that one out but she's using the present tense with reference to a future event, like saying 'Scotland are not in the world cup' despite the world cup not having occurred as yet. Words, eh?

Actually, I don't want to watch it because last time I opened a link you posted it was from a white-supremacist site and I started receiving loads of spam. Anyroad, I think I've had enough of your evasions for the day. You say go read Acts, I point out that what Acts says about Peter's revelation and the Gentile Cornelius, this being after the revelation to Paul, and you blank it and revert to your unquestioning use of YouTube rather than Scripture.

I know Acts. I know that after Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus, once the scales had fallen from his eyes, he was baptized (what have you against baptism?). I know that after this, the Gentile Cornelius was told by the Holy Ghost to seek out Peter, who then had the vision showing that the Gospel was for all. The same Peter who said to Cornelius that "of every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." (Acts 10:35). None of which explains the delay in revelation, but it does show that Peter was still subject to revelation following Saul's conversion, and those revelations were not solely regarding Israel, yet you reject Peter's teachings. It makes no sense.

The risen Christ appeared to many people (500 at one time according to Paul), including all the disciples. I have read Acts. You're not explaining the delay in revelation from post-resurrection to post-ascension.

Sooo … it's no longer a mystery, so why keep calling it a mystery? Weird. Anyway, the latest unanswered questions: a) Where did I say salvation had to be earned? b) Why the delay in the revelation of the mystery? The risen Christ had paid for our sins, had he not? Why not reveal it on the road to Emmaus instead of Damascus?

So it's not a 'mystery', so why do you keep calling it the 'mystery dispensation'? Try and make words mean something. Just out of mild curiosity, what is your mob's explanation for Christ not revealing all this ("Hey gentiles, ignore all that stuff I said before the buggers crucified me - it wasn't about you") after the resurrection? He'd paid for our sins by then.

Where did I say anything about 'earning salvation'? I understand your narrow, blinkered interpretation of Paul's letters, I just don't accept it for many reasons, not least of which is Paul's clear statement that there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek when it comes to salvation. There's nothing mysterious about it. You do know that the point of a MYSTERY is that it cannot be understood?

Which simply means you don't understand what I wrote.

I guess I missed it. Given that I disagree with the basic premise (the Bible is divinely inspired), his interpretations of the text make rather more sense than yours. Are you going to give him an answer about the goats? It's hard to know where to begin with stuff like this. If you warp the interpretation of metaphor and symbol sufficiently, you find yourself down a rabbit hole (that's not a literal rabbit hole, btw), feeding on scraps of symbolism that you convert into evidence for the existence of mystical, cabalistic forces. Dan Brown's made a career out of it. It's a pity because you miss out on all the fascinating history and poetry that underlie these symbols and metaphors. The end result is paranoia (plus some bizarre message board posts). But (and this is where I sympathize with Scotty's position and find yours deeply unpleasant) that does not mean that good works in any way damage the soul's salvation. They may not be necessary, but they are inextricably linked with the journey of following Christ. Your concept of the economy of salvation seems aimed at impeding that journey for the majority who take it, by denying any relevance to the teachings of Jesus which, most neutral observers would probably agree, are the most worthwhile things the Bible has to offer. Instead, you make the flawed claim that all of this is solely for the Jews and instead you focus entirely on the teachings of a fanatical convert recorded in his letters, a convert whose mission was to spread Christ's gospel to the gentiles, not ditch it because of its awkwardly Judaic context.

The familiar, plaintive cry of all who've ever asked Kimba a tricky question ...

Have you looked into any of these? The first substantive one is interesting in the present context (Matt. 17:21) because the verse that many versions have not included has Jesus stating that works, not faith, are required for the casting out of a particular evil spirit. The reason it doesn't appear in those versions is that it appears to have been lifted from the parallel context in Mark and in the context of Matthew it creates a contradiction. Also, it doesn't appear in some copies of the source text. Like all bibliographical work, choices have to be made. The next one I looked at (Luke 17:36) is an example of the KJV adding to the original copy where this verse does not appear. Therefore they lifted it from the parallel passage in Matthew where it does. Versions that exclude this text in Luke are simply staying true to their Greek copy text. The rest will all be similar. Improved translations of the original texts.

And? Modern translations go back to the original Hebrew and give a more accurate rendering of the word Hêlêl than the King James translators who followed the Latin Vulgate here. It's odd that you should prefer to follow Roman Catholic tradition than the purity of the original text ... actually it's not.

Then what's your beef with Scotty? ... don't bother, I know the answer. The doctrines of your current sect really are something to behold. Right division means dividing yourselves from the teachings of Christ. Why bother with the rest of the Bible at all, in whatever version? Your scripture consists of a few letters written by a fanatical convert (and we all know how fanatical converts can be). It'd be sad if it actually meant anything.

I do use Bible hub a good deal, but you'll need to point out these erased verses of which you speak. Last time you were on here claiming scripture had been erased (in the Roman Catholic catechism, not a version of the Bible), you were shown to be completely wrong. As for twistings - that's what you're doing with Paul's "there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek". The argument for the primacy of the KJV is non-existent (in your case based on some deluded 'spiritual discernment' that is denied the rest of us). God does not exclusively favour readers of 17th century English - if he did, I'd be well in ...

It's clearly not - Paul says so. Then how can adding works to grace nullify it? That's what you claimed. You are making no sense.

Ok. Show us this spiritual discernment by making some of these comparisons (while you're at it, you could also explain why he preserved his word for readers of 17th century English, and why he hid Shakespeare's name in Psalm 46).

The Bible is made up of words. Words are often ambiguous. That's where interpretation come in. Still, let's take a set of words which appear to have unambiguous meaning and see how they fit with your claims about salvation (you know what's coming, because you've studiously avoided it often enough): On the subject of salvation Paul writes: "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Romans 10:10) Paul appears to be explicitly stating that a confession of faith is a requirement of salvation. A couple of times you have said that this applies only to the Jews (and in so doing accepting that that's what Paul is saying), about whom Paul is writing at the beginning of chapter 10, but Paul goes on to state: "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Paul is explicitly saying that this applies equally to Jews and Gentiles. This: If works nullify grace, why does Paul say "If a man therefore purge himself from these [some metaphorical vessels], he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work," and "that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works"? (2 Timothy 2:21 & 3:17).

I doubt it. I don't suppose more than a handful are even reading this stuff. Anyway, as should be obvious, I am not defending Scotty. I was trying to explain (to the couple of people that might be interested enough to be perplexed) the schism that has rent you two asunder. I sympathize with Scotty's position on this because you are following an interpretation of Pauline teaching that is not only fundamentally flawed but is deeply unpleasant. Since we're here, I like this claim about God the Publisher: How do you know that that is where God preserved his Word? Seriously, that's quite a claim - how do you know it? Why is it preserved only for readers of early 17th century English? If God didn't want any deletions, changes or waterings down, why not follow the Islamic route and prohibit any translation from, in this case, the original Hebrew and Greek? Finally (just cos it's interesting) if the King James Version is where God chose to preserve his Word, wouldn't He have stopped jumped-up, mortal playwrights messing with the text? The year's 1610. Translation work on King James' Bible is carrying on apace as it's to be published the following year. But as in all translations, it's not a simple matter of word-for-word transposition from Hebrew to English; the text must keep its poetic quality. Plenty of poets kicking about England at the time, bring them in to help the Hebrew scholars. One of 'em chooses to leave his calling card in Psalm 46 (count 46 words in from the start, and 46 words back from the end [not counting the extraneous and untranslatable Selahs]. Why '46'? Who happened to be born in 1564?).

There's no tipping at all in Japan - offering a tip is considered insulting. Takes a fair bit of stress out of life.

It's not so much stalking, more knowing how to match words to author in the advanced search facility … competent cunt..

You'll never get the stains out of that laptop.

You should take this up for a living; it's uncanny ...

Rubbish. There's no end of stuff for which there's 'absolutely zero definitive proof' that is and should be discussed - all aspects of ethics, for example, and most of our laws are based on that particularly knotty problem. Even if that was all it were, it would still be a worthwhile read for those of us interested in that sort of thing. As it is, Kimba doesn't read the Bible, she watches the internet, it forms and warps her mindset which is closed to any viewpoint that contradicts the narrow, loveless doctrine spread by this Grace Ambassadors bunch. Scotty does read the Bible. Leaving aside the issue of it being written by men in an effort to formulate a response, or variety of responses, to their wonder at the world in which they found themselves and the mystery of the human condition (and it's fine leaving that rather major point aside in this context as this debate is about interpretations of the text itself), there is a perfectly sound argument that salvation rests on faith alone. Both Scotty and Kimba agree on this point. However, Scotty quite reasonably believes that those who are saved will likely live their lives in a certain way, not because it is necessary for salvation but because it is an inextricable concomitant of the faith that has saved them. Kimba's mob say that living your life in such a way is boastful pride and leads to damnation. For them, 'faith' is not only sufficient, but cannot be seen to be added to in any way, like acts of decency for example. The details of the 'Pauline dispensation' upon which this is based are interesting but complex, and self-contradictory. Hence my questions about Romans 10:12-13 that Kimba is unable to answer. All of which is indeed just a post-reformation equivalent of debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. The beauty lies, for me, in seeing Scotty have to deal with Kimba in all her arrogance and blind acceptance of the warped beliefs some unpleasant dude she's found on the internet. Scotty asked her where the joy was a page or so back. Her joy lies in the self-righteous belief that she is saved and, better still, it requires absolutely no effort or expenditure, and even better than that: everyone else is fucked - even the schmucks who try and do some good in this world. Scotty supported Kimba when I questioned the rubbish she spouted in her last incarnation and he happily played along with her gatekeeper shite. I'm enjoying this ...

I know precisely what's going on in this thread, and it's an absolute peach.

[Joke]