[jerzy]

Originally Posted by john w

"And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Acts 7:59 KJV

No calling upon the apostles to combat.

James 4 KJV
Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?

Lusteth to envy what?

[john w]

Originally Posted by jerzy

No calling upon the apostles to combat.



Lusteth to envy what?

It can be clearly seen, that the word “sword” is added to this text"-JerzyJoe

"And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Acts 7:59 KJV


Translate from "The Greek," each respective word into its English equivalent. And identify this "The Greek" you are using.

It should be clearly seen, you being a bible corrector, and all."-John W


Did our hero answer the question, base upon his own "argument?" Nope. His punt, scribble:

"No calling upon the apostles to combat."-JerzyJoe




"James 4 KJV
Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?


Identify this "The Hebrew," or "The Greek," this "the scripture saith" to which James is referring. Was "The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy" deleted to the text?


It should be clearly seen, you being a bible corrector, and all.

Let me guess: Thus saith my interpretation....the book is wrong"-John W


Did our hero answer the question, base upon his own "argument?" Nope. His punt, scribble:

"Lusteth to envy what?"-JerzyJoe


I picked your "argument" apart, and reduced you to muttering, "Well, uh, urr, you see...."-you weren't expecting it. The bible is full of traps for bible correctors/critics/rejectors/agnostics, such as yourself.

Poor you.

[jerzy]

Originally Posted by john w

"James 4 KJV
Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?

So you quoted this verse not knowing what "The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy" for.

Does the Spirit envy that we lack swords?

I picked your "argument" apart, and reduced you to muttering, "Well, uh, urr, you see...."-you weren't expecting it. The bible is full of traps for bible correctors/critics/rejectors/agnostics, such as yourself.

The only think you managed to do is to make a fool of your self by obscure and abusive posts, making clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.


Now, let me explain my point again.

The Trinitarians are guilty of additions to the scriptures. The three heavenly witnesses addition into 1Jn 5:7 is beyond dispute. It also appears in your "the only God inspired" KJV.

Why God in His "the only inspired" KJV missed a number pointing to the original word used.

Question is why you are directing me to the "God not inspired" documents to correct the mistake of "the only God inspired" KJV?

Perhaps this is why you are really fuming of. Your "the only God inspired" KJV proved to be not so inspired.




Besides, the word "sword" in Lu 22:36 doesn't really fit the context of Lu 22 no Jesus' teaching at all.

This word has no number in your "the only God inspired" KJV which rises a question why it is there. Was it added or it signifies something else as the commentaries indicate.

One is certain. Jesus couldn't call anybody to combat in Lu 22:36 against his entire teaching.

Thus the Trinitarian use of it in justification of their barbarism proves their guilt beyond doubt.

[john w]

Originally Posted by jerzy

So you quoted this verse not knowing what "The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy" for.

Does the Spirit envy that we lack swords?



The only think you managed to do is to make a fool of your self by obscure and abusive posts, making clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.


Now, let me explain my point again.

The Trinitarians are guilty of additions to the scriptures. The three heavenly witnesses addition into 1Jn 5:7 is beyond dispute. It also appears in your "the only God inspired" KJV.

Why God in His "the only inspired" KJV missed a number pointing to the original word used.

Question is why you are directing me to the "God not inspired" documents to correct the mistake of "the only God inspired" KJV?

Perhaps this is why you are really fuming of. Your "the only God inspired" KJV proved to be not so inspired.




Besides, the word "sword" in Lu 22:36 doesn't really fit the context of Lu 22 no Jesus' teaching at all.

This word has no number in your "the only God inspired" KJV which rises a question why it is there. Was it added or it signifies something else as the commentaries indicate.

One is certain. Jesus couldn't call anybody to combat in Lu 22:36 against his entire teaching.

Thus the Trinitarian use of it in justification of their barbarism proves their guilt beyond doubt.

"The only think you managed to do is to make a fool of your self by obscure and abusive posts, making clear that you have no idea what you are talking about."-JerzyJoe

More sound bytes, emotional appeals. Zinged me again. Weighty. I stay on topic.

Nope-you missed it-your "argument:"


"It can be clearly seen, that the word “sword” is added to this text....This word has no number in your "the only God inspired" KJV which rises a question why it is there. Was it added or it signifies something else as the commentaries indicate.
"-JerzyJoe

"And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Acts 7:59 KJV


Translate from "The Greek," each respective word into its English equivalent. And identify this "The Greek" you are using.

It should be clearly seen, you being a bible corrector, and all."-John W


Did our hero answer the question, base upon his own "argument?" Nope. His punt, scribble:

"No calling upon the apostles to combat."-JerzyJoe




"James 4 KJV
Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?


Identify this "The Hebrew," or "The Greek," this "the scripture saith" to which James is referring. Was "The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy" deleted to the text?


It should be clearly seen, you being a bible corrector, and all.

Let me guess: Thus saith my interpretation....the book is wrong"-John W


Ah, yes..

"Besides, the word "sword" in Lu 22:36 doesn't really fit the context of Lu 22 no Jesus' teaching at all."-JerzyJoe

The poor fool does not understand the difference between objective revelation, given by objective words, and interpretation/illumination/understanding.

And you are "debating?"

Translated: This verse does not make sense to me, JerzyJoe, so delete it, or find another bible that agrees with me=my doctrine/understanding determines what the book is, or what it should say="Thus saith my interpretation"=I don't get it, so obviously a word was added/deleted, and I will help out the LORD God in correcting His book..

Lovely.


Did our hero answer the question, base upon his own "argument?" Nope. His punt, scribble:

"Lusteth to envy what?"-JerzyJoe


"The Trinitarians are guilty of additions to the scriptures."-JerzyJoe

What a mess....Father, do I have to give him another shovel?

Added to what scriptures? The originals? You have them? "Added" means you have the source document, by which to measure what it was "added to." Identify it.


I will wait.



I picked your "argument" apart, and reduced you to muttering, "Well, uh, urr, you see...."-you weren't expecting it. The bible is full of traps for bible correctors/critics/rejectors/agnostics, such as yourself.

Poor you.
___________
guilty of additions to the scriptures-JerzyJoe



"added" to what? The scriptures? Identify these illusive "scriptures" to which a word was added. Would that be the originals?

Like a word was "added" to Acts 7:59(fill in the version)?

And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Acts 7:59 KJV


Translate from "The Greek," each respective word into its English equivalent. And identify this "The Greek" you are using.

It should be clearly seen, you being a bible corrector, and all, which word was "added." You've "obviously" studied the issue-should be a piece of cake to "figger" out, Gomer, what word was "added."

[jerzy]

Originally Posted by john w

More sound bytes, emotional appeals. Zinged me again. Weighty. I stay on topic.

Thanks for proving my point again.

[Totton Linnet]

Jesus nor John the baptist or Peter did not rebuke the soldiers or command them to leave the army. Yet Cornelius was baptised in the Holy Ghost as Peter had been.

[Totton Linnet]

Perhaps the centurian at the cross was saved.

[jerzy]

Originally Posted by Totton Linnet

Jesus nor John the baptist or Peter did not rebuke the soldiers or command them to leave the army.

They were of this world.

Yet Cornelius was baptised in the Holy Ghost as Peter had been.

Did he continue butchering people?

[jerzy]

Originally Posted by Totton Linnet

Perhaps the centurian at the cross was saved.

If so, did he continue butchering people?

[tomlapalm]

What is with you and butchering?
i guarantee, there have been more people killed without a christian label being involved than those where either side being might be called a christian.


I also guarantee that there have been more hospitals, orphanages, libraries, universities by those trying to Christlike than those who do not.

quit trying to fault Christ by the action of some, who might br christian in name only.

[jerzy]

Originally Posted by tomlapalm

What is with you and butchering?
i guarantee, there have been more people killed without a christian label being involved than those where either side being might be called a christian.

Killing might be their religion but the Trinitarian butchering is not only against the clear Christ's teaching but a clear evidence that they are not his followers; they are not Christians but mere usurpers.

By their fruits we know that they are not his disciples.

I also guarantee that there have been more hospitals, orphanages...by those trying to Christlike than those who do not.

First butcher them then treat the victims and take care of the orphans.

quit trying to fault Christ by the action of some...

Some?

Hmmmm!!!!

How many Trinitarians followed Hitler and Mussolini in the Trinitarian man slaughter of WW 2?

[john w]

Originally Posted by jerzy

Thanks for proving my point again.

Translated...




....as you bedazzle us with another never heard before zinger. I picked you apart, and you are left on the side of the road, bludgeoned by the book. You fell into a ditch, trap. The bible is full of traps for bible rejectors/correctors/agnostics.

[Totton Linnet]

Originally Posted by jerzy

They were of this world.



Did he continue butchering people?

*
It was no part of his salvation that he should quit the army, if he remained a soldier he would follow orders. God ordered that soldiers and policemen should be armed to punish evildoers.

Your great and overwhelming need and urgent problem jerzy is to get saved...then you will be able to discern what is right and wrong.

[jerzy]

Originally Posted by Totton Linnet

*
It was no part of his salvation that he should quit the army, if he remained a soldier he would follow orders. God ordered that soldiers and policemen should be armed to punish evildoers.

It is written that God sets up wicket against evildoers.

Your great and overwhelming need and urgent problem jerzy is to get saved...then you will be able to discern what is right and wrong.

So those “saved” like you know that to butcher people by millions the Trinitarian style is right and following the Lord Jesus Christ is wrong.

One wonders what you were saved from.

Perhaps from serving the Lord.

That makes sense.

[Totton Linnet]

Originally Posted by jerzy

It is written that God sets up wicket against evildoers.



So those “saved” like you know that to butcher people by millions the Trinitarian style is right and following the Lord Jesus Christ is wrong.

One wonders what you were saved from.

Perhaps from serving the Lord.

That makes sense.

*
Those who were butchered were trinitarian you dope, they were my spiritual forefathers. You do not know what saved means so find that out first, then you can start lecturing God about what is right and what is wrong.