Machos
From Kristos Vocabulary Booster
English
Noun
machos
- Machismo.
In article
dell12345 says...
>When Jesus said and I rejoice on YOUR account that I
>was not there, in order for YOU to believe, the people at
>that time didnt find it misleading because Jesus was
>telling them that he was NOT THERE,
You said that before, and I already explained where you went
wrong. So what do you hope to achieve by mindlessly
repeating your own words? It was NOT 'misleading'. Instead,
it was merely another of the MANY examples of things Christ
said that were fully understood only _after_ the
Resurrection.
But you, in your mindless insistence on what you do NOT even understand
yourself, will not even shrink from contradicting the word of Christ Himself
(see below). Now that is really shameful.
> i.e. Jesus whole being was not there.
No, that is NOT what it means.
> As I have said, if Jesus was there he wont even say ΄
>I was not there at all.
And as I already explained to you, that is completely false.
> If you put yourself in a situation where you were present
>in a crime situation, and you told the police that you were
>not there, then you are a liar and you are misleading the
>police.
But this is a completely different situation, so your
analogy is false. For unlike Christ, we are not omnipresent.
> Jesus likewise wont say ΄I was not there at all if
>he was there.
I didn't say He did. You are interpreting His words out of
context and too literally.
>Acts 17:22-31 is a witness given by the Apostle Paul so
>that the men of Athens would know the true God. And Paul
>describes God as ΄Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell
>in handmade temples. The point is, if you are IN A PLACE
>ALL THE TIME (OMNIPRESENT) then you DWELL in there.
No, that does not follow. You are making this up to make it
_look_ like Acts 17:22-31 supports you. It does no such
thing.
> God DOES NOT DWELL in handmade temples.
Yes, He does.
But you know, what I find even more shocking than your bold
and false assertion is that you dare to contradict the words
of CHrist HImself, who said:
and he who swears by the temple, swears by it and by him
who dwells in it; (Mat 23:21 RSVA)
You have a big problem here!
>I am not being reckless or silly, Matthew.
Yes, you are. You are being both reckless and
silly. Especially silly. But your recklessness in
contradicting the words of Christ Himself is still
breathtaking!
> The Bible proves that your explanation is wrong.
No, it does no such thing. On the contrary: Jer 23:24 proves
very clearly that YOU are wrong. Why, in your other post you
have no answer to Jer 23:24, and so have to hide behind
unmarked snips rather than answer.
True, in this post, you finally answer, but not only is your
answer late, but it is _really_ unconvincing. See below.
>Are you humble enough to admit that you are mistaken?
Only when I really am mistaken. And that is certainly not
the case now. It is your turn to practice this humility, not
my turn.
> The other problem is that you are following a tradition
>which you call ΄Christian but in fact is a falsehood.
No, it is you who is following a falsehood instead of
Christianity.
> We should not be blind and harden our hearts when the
>Bible corrects us.
So stop it already. Stop being blind and hard-hearted. Admit
you are wrong in your explanation of "dwelling in temples",
wrong in claiming "to be in a place" = "to dwell in a
place"...
>It is very clear that you are admitting that God and his
>Son, Jesus, are IN Satan, IN idols like Baal, in Unholy
>places.
Which makes the sin done in those places and persons all the
worse a sin.
> If you, Matthew can mislead other people, you cannot fool
>me.
No. You beat me too it. You fooled yourself before I could
even try to fool you;)
>Number 14:42, Deut 31:17 stated that God ΄is not in YOUR
>midst. If God is not in the peoples midst, then God is
>not in ΄ALL PLACES AT ALL TIMES.
No. For "in your midst" has a special technical meaning.
>Explanation for Jer 23:24 -
No, this 'explanation' is just nonsense.
>When you have a glass with marbles in it, and you FILL up
>water in the glass, the water filled up the glass, the
>water surrounds the marbles.
But that is irrelevant here. See below.
> So if you say ΄I did fill the glass , it is understood
>that you fill it with whatever you put in the glass, in
>this case, water.
Again, that is irrelevant here.
> It doesnt mean though that ΄you , your body is in
>the glass because you filled it. It is the same as Jer
>23:24,
No, it is NOT the same. For in your example, a glass, the
context tells us what the glass is full of. But in Jer
23:24, what are heaven and earth full of? Not water! They
are full of the LORD.
> God put his spirit, his power, his glory and his
>loving-kindness to the heaven and earth
If that had been what Jeremiah meant, he would have had to
say so explicitly. But he did not.
>but that doesnt mean that the things in the earth and
>heaven (man, angels,etc) are being occupied by the person
>of God.
Yes, it does.
>And yes, God is so vast, we cant describe it. But it
>doesnt mean that He will occupy unholy places, disgusting
>things, like Satan, Baal, your excrement, etc.
So is THIS the motive behind your impiety? False
fastidiousness on God's behalf?
> No wonder Christians do not worship any ΄image or a
>form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is
>on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the
>earth because GOD is NOT IN them.
No, that is not why. It is because God is NOT those things.
This SHOULD have been obvious to you. I am still puzzled why
it is not obvious to you even now. After all, to return to
your beloved example of the holy temple, you do not worship
the temple itself, do you? You worship, or at least you SAY
you worship, the God who dwells IN the temple, making it
holy.
>That also explains why Jesus said, ΄Our Father IN the
> HEAVENS.
No, that does not explain it. You are putting the cart
before the horse.
> Not Our Father IN Everywhere.
No, the reason He did not say this is because that would
have been quite out of context.
> As Hab 2:20 stated ΄20 But Jehovah is IN his HOLY
>temple. Do you expect God to be IN an UNHOLY Temple?
Yes, I do. But Habakkuk rightly chose not to mention His
omnipresence here, to mention His presence, His _special_
presence, in His own holy temple.
--
---------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
