my testimony (Watchman of Naphtali)

[Watchman of Naphtali]

In this, I may enter into contention with some of the posters here.

Dude, that's not a cool way to start off. Like, you're self-sabotaging and setting for yourself the expectation that there will be contention, so you'll seek it, in a way, and make it true. Like, you're righteous to judge?

It sounds like you need to believe that people can be friendly, and you maybe also need to accept your circumstance with these prayers for transmutation acting as an ongoing rejection of them. Where in that is the peace of God? I'm one to talk.

I know a lot about that myself. ICD 10 F64, F64.2... Aren't I lucky?

No, I am not here to seek contention; but I am also not so naive as to think that there will be none.

The scriptures teach (2 Thessalonians 2:2, Jude 1:3) that where the true gospel is preached, there will be contention among those who are not willing to receive the words of life coming from holy scripture.

Well, see, you've setup a scenario now in which either we preach the true Gospel and there's contention with your false gospel, or you preach the true Gospel and there's contention with our false gospel.

That betrays all sorts of things about how you imagine yourself to be in relation to the forum, and your intention in joining, what you hope to get out of it (or put in), and what you expect. So if you've set up all these expectations, are you actually interested in discussion, or are you going to do the teach/preach/I have the true Gospel thing?

Or, I preach the true gospel and you simply agree that it is the true gospel.

Or, you preach the true gospel and I agree that it is the true gospel.

When the true gospel is preached, unbelievers will have contention with it.

Believers won't.

That's not the most honest thing you've said. You would only agree with us if we agree with you, by the sounds of things.

And see, here you're now casting those who disagree with you (since you don't believe you have the false gospel) as unbelievers. And I think you're well aware you've done that because you don't expect us to accept your doctrine.

One can only hope (for your sake) that you will receive the truth.

I have said that if you can show me to be wrong anywhere in scripture, that I will conform my point of view to scripture.

As one can only hope (for your sake) that you will receive the truth? Or is that only one-way?

Well, to give you credit, you did abandon the teeny tiny 10th definitely not taught anywhere in Genesis 1 dimension.

What truth am I not receiving?

By all means, testify.

What truth are we not receiving?

I never said that there were any truths that you are not receiving.

But you all do seem to be argumentative as I was expecting from the getgo.

[Watchman of Naphtali]

1Co 2:14, But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You see, I'm asking because despite all my stupidity and enormous struggle and self-pity and sin and whatever else, I still have that classic gift of discernment, and I'm wondering if you're worth the trouble given that I think it's pretty obvious you'll either leave or be invited to leave at which point you can pronounce your judgements or whatever.

Do you know, I actually like 1 Corinthians 2:15 - 16 better than v14:

15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments,
16 for,

“Who has known the mind of the Lord
    so as to instruct him?”

But we have the mind of Christ.

See if you're going to use Scripture as a hammer, it's often more effective to claim to be the person with the Spirit than to simply try a one-verse theology accusing the other person of being the "natural man". I mean, the implication is there, but it's all a matter of emphasis when the point is to inflict rhetorical harm.

I'm glad you stayed away from v12 - 13. I mean, that would have really set the stage. I'm really not sure what else you expected with that citation. But hey, you know what? I set this line up just for you. I hope you don't take it.

No, I was not accusing you of being the natural man; only substantiating my point that it is unbelievers who will have contention with the true gospel when it is preached.

[Athanasius]

In this, I may enter into contention with some of the posters here.

Dude, that's not a cool way to start off. Like, you're self-sabotaging and setting for yourself the expectation that there will be contention, so you'll seek it, in a way, and make it true. Like, you're righteous to judge?

It sounds like you need to believe that people can be friendly, and you maybe also need to accept your circumstance with these prayers for transmutation acting as an ongoing rejection of them. Where in that is the peace of God? I'm one to talk.

I know a lot about that myself. ICD 10 F64, F64.2... Aren't I lucky?

No, I am not here to seek contention; but I am also not so naive as to think that there will be none.

The scriptures teach (2 Thessalonians 2:2, Jude 1:3) that where the true gospel is preached, there will be contention among those who are not willing to receive the words of life coming from holy scripture.

Well, see, you've setup a scenario now in which either we preach the true Gospel and there's contention with your false gospel, or you preach the true Gospel and there's contention with our false gospel.

That betrays all sorts of things about how you imagine yourself to be in relation to the forum, and your intention in joining, what you hope to get out of it (or put in), and what you expect. So if you've set up all these expectations, are you actually interested in discussion, or are you going to do the teach/preach/I have the true Gospel thing?

Or, I preach the true gospel and you simply agree that it is the true gospel.

Or, you preach the true gospel and I agree that it is the true gospel.

When the true gospel is preached, unbelievers will have contention with it.

Believers won't.

That's not the most honest thing you've said. You would only agree with us if we agree with you, by the sounds of things.

And see, here you're now casting those who disagree with you (since you don't believe you have the false gospel) as unbelievers. And I think you're well aware you've done that because you don't expect us to accept your doctrine.

One can only hope (for your sake) that you will receive the truth.

I have said that if you can show me to be wrong anywhere in scripture, that I will conform my point of view to scripture.

As one can only hope (for your sake) that you will receive the truth? Or is that only one-way?

Well, to give you credit, you did abandon the teeny tiny 10th definitely not taught anywhere in Genesis 1 dimension.

What truth am I not receiving?

By all means, testify.

What truth are we not receiving?

I never said that there were any truths that you are not receiving.

But you all do seem to be argumentative as I was expecting from the getgo.

You did wish it, after all.

And these semantic games, to try to innocuously sneak in a "for your sake", only to play defensive when challenged in the same way. It's very boring.

[Watchman of Naphtali]

In this, I may enter into contention with some of the posters here.

Dude, that's not a cool way to start off. Like, you're self-sabotaging and setting for yourself the expectation that there will be contention, so you'll seek it, in a way, and make it true. Like, you're righteous to judge?

It sounds like you need to believe that people can be friendly, and you maybe also need to accept your circumstance with these prayers for transmutation acting as an ongoing rejection of them. Where in that is the peace of God? I'm one to talk.

I know a lot about that myself. ICD 10 F64, F64.2... Aren't I lucky?

No, I am not here to seek contention; but I am also not so naive as to think that there will be none.

The scriptures teach (2 Thessalonians 2:2, Jude 1:3) that where the true gospel is preached, there will be contention among those who are not willing to receive the words of life coming from holy scripture.

Well, see, you've setup a scenario now in which either we preach the true Gospel and there's contention with your false gospel, or you preach the true Gospel and there's contention with our false gospel.

That betrays all sorts of things about how you imagine yourself to be in relation to the forum, and your intention in joining, what you hope to get out of it (or put in), and what you expect. So if you've set up all these expectations, are you actually interested in discussion, or are you going to do the teach/preach/I have the true Gospel thing?

Or, I preach the true gospel and you simply agree that it is the true gospel.

Or, you preach the true gospel and I agree that it is the true gospel.

When the true gospel is preached, unbelievers will have contention with it.

Believers won't.

That's not the most honest thing you've said. You would only agree with us if we agree with you, by the sounds of things.

And see, here you're now casting those who disagree with you (since you don't believe you have the false gospel) as unbelievers. And I think you're well aware you've done that because you don't expect us to accept your doctrine.

One can only hope (for your sake) that you will receive the truth.

I have said that if you can show me to be wrong anywhere in scripture, that I will conform my point of view to scripture.

As one can only hope (for your sake) that you will receive the truth? Or is that only one-way?

Well, to give you credit, you did abandon the teeny tiny 10th definitely not taught anywhere in Genesis 1 dimension.

What truth am I not receiving?

By all means, testify.

What truth are we not receiving?

I never said that there were any truths that you are not receiving.

But you all do seem to be argumentative as I was expecting from the getgo.

You did wish it, after all.

And these semantic games, to try to innocuously sneak in a "for your sake", only to play defensive when challenged in the same way. It's very boring.

No, I never did wish it.  I only expected it.

I would much prefer if people would simply agree with the truth from the getgo instead of going into "debate mode".

[Athanasius]

In this, I may enter into contention with some of the posters here.

Dude, that's not a cool way to start off. Like, you're self-sabotaging and setting for yourself the expectation that there will be contention, so you'll seek it, in a way, and make it true. Like, you're righteous to judge?

It sounds like you need to believe that people can be friendly, and you maybe also need to accept your circumstance with these prayers for transmutation acting as an ongoing rejection of them. Where in that is the peace of God? I'm one to talk.

I know a lot about that myself. ICD 10 F64, F64.2... Aren't I lucky?

No, I am not here to seek contention; but I am also not so naive as to think that there will be none.

The scriptures teach (2 Thessalonians 2:2, Jude 1:3) that where the true gospel is preached, there will be contention among those who are not willing to receive the words of life coming from holy scripture.

Well, see, you've setup a scenario now in which either we preach the true Gospel and there's contention with your false gospel, or you preach the true Gospel and there's contention with our false gospel.

That betrays all sorts of things about how you imagine yourself to be in relation to the forum, and your intention in joining, what you hope to get out of it (or put in), and what you expect. So if you've set up all these expectations, are you actually interested in discussion, or are you going to do the teach/preach/I have the true Gospel thing?

Or, I preach the true gospel and you simply agree that it is the true gospel.

Or, you preach the true gospel and I agree that it is the true gospel.

When the true gospel is preached, unbelievers will have contention with it.

Believers won't.

That's not the most honest thing you've said. You would only agree with us if we agree with you, by the sounds of things.

And see, here you're now casting those who disagree with you (since you don't believe you have the false gospel) as unbelievers. And I think you're well aware you've done that because you don't expect us to accept your doctrine.

One can only hope (for your sake) that you will receive the truth.

I have said that if you can show me to be wrong anywhere in scripture, that I will conform my point of view to scripture.

As one can only hope (for your sake) that you will receive the truth? Or is that only one-way?

Well, to give you credit, you did abandon the teeny tiny 10th definitely not taught anywhere in Genesis 1 dimension.

What truth am I not receiving?

By all means, testify.

What truth are we not receiving?

I never said that there were any truths that you are not receiving.

But you all do seem to be argumentative as I was expecting from the getgo.

You did wish it, after all.

And these semantic games, to try to innocuously sneak in a "for your sake", only to play defensive when challenged in the same way. It's very boring.

No, I never did wish it.  I only expected it.

I would much prefer if people would simply agree with the truth from the getgo instead of going into "debate mode".

Oh boy, now the gaslighting.

Well, I'll tell you what: I'm going to go to bed, and we'll see how things go, and maybe I'll be surprised. Hopefully, but probably not.

[Watchman of Naphtali]

In this, I may enter into contention with some of the posters here.

Dude, that's not a cool way to start off. Like, you're self-sabotaging and setting for yourself the expectation that there will be contention, so you'll seek it, in a way, and make it true. Like, you're righteous to judge?

It sounds like you need to believe that people can be friendly, and you maybe also need to accept your circumstance with these prayers for transmutation acting as an ongoing rejection of them. Where in that is the peace of God? I'm one to talk.

I know a lot about that myself. ICD 10 F64, F64.2... Aren't I lucky?

No, I am not here to seek contention; but I am also not so naive as to think that there will be none.

The scriptures teach (2 Thessalonians 2:2, Jude 1:3) that where the true gospel is preached, there will be contention among those who are not willing to receive the words of life coming from holy scripture.

Well, see, you've setup a scenario now in which either we preach the true Gospel and there's contention with your false gospel, or you preach the true Gospel and there's contention with our false gospel.

That betrays all sorts of things about how you imagine yourself to be in relation to the forum, and your intention in joining, what you hope to get out of it (or put in), and what you expect. So if you've set up all these expectations, are you actually interested in discussion, or are you going to do the teach/preach/I have the true Gospel thing?

Or, I preach the true gospel and you simply agree that it is the true gospel.

Or, you preach the true gospel and I agree that it is the true gospel.

When the true gospel is preached, unbelievers will have contention with it.

Believers won't.

That's not the most honest thing you've said. You would only agree with us if we agree with you, by the sounds of things.

And see, here you're now casting those who disagree with you (since you don't believe you have the false gospel) as unbelievers. And I think you're well aware you've done that because you don't expect us to accept your doctrine.

One can only hope (for your sake) that you will receive the truth.

I have said that if you can show me to be wrong anywhere in scripture, that I will conform my point of view to scripture.

As one can only hope (for your sake) that you will receive the truth? Or is that only one-way?

Well, to give you credit, you did abandon the teeny tiny 10th definitely not taught anywhere in Genesis 1 dimension.

What truth am I not receiving?

By all means, testify.

What truth are we not receiving?

I never said that there were any truths that you are not receiving.

But you all do seem to be argumentative as I was expecting from the getgo.

You did wish it, after all.

And these semantic games, to try to innocuously sneak in a "for your sake", only to play defensive when challenged in the same way. It's very boring.

No, I never did wish it.  I only expected it.

I would much prefer if people would simply agree with the truth from the getgo instead of going into "debate mode".

Oh boy, now the gaslighting.

Well, I'll tell you what: I'm going to go to bed, and we'll see how things go, and maybe I'll be surprised. Hopefully, but probably not.

What is "gaslighting"?

If I am doing that then I apologize.

I really don't even know what it is.

Maybe you can educate me.

[Athanasius]

I educated him by banning him.

If anyone is curious. It's because:

- He didn't come to discuss
- He came to teach the "true Gospel" of which he is a true Apostle
- He placed himself in a position of divine judgment and retribution against the forum
- And not only that, but eschatological judgement
- He exhibited a pattern of religious abuse
- He exhibited a pattern of psychological manipulation and abuse

And I am simply not interested.

[ProDeo]

1Co 2:14, But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You see, I'm asking because despite all my stupidity and enormous struggle and self-pity and sin and whatever else, I still have that classic gift of discernment, and I'm wondering if you're worth the trouble given that I think it's pretty obvious you'll either leave or be invited to leave at which point you can pronounce your judgements or whatever.

Do you know, I actually like 1 Corinthians 2:15 - 16 better than v14:

15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments,
16 for,

“Who has known the mind of the Lord
    so as to instruct him?”

But we have the mind of Christ.

See if you're going to use Scripture as a hammer, it's often more effective to claim to be the person with the Spirit than to simply try a one-verse theology accusing the other person of being the "natural man". I mean, the implication is there, but it's all a matter of emphasis when the point is to inflict rhetorical harm.

I'm glad you stayed away from v12 - 13. I mean, that would have really set the stage. I'm really not sure what else you expected with that citation. But hey, you know what? I set this line up just for you. I hope you don't take it.

No, I was not accusing you of being the natural man; only substantiating my point that it is unbelievers who will have contention with the true gospel when it is preached.

In a Christian forum and in the context how the discussion developed,  how should it not understood it that way ?

[ProDeo]

1Co 2:14, But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Ah, you come here, know nobody and yet after a few posts throw a text in the mix that spread your doubt on all the forum members if they are not spiritually discerned.

Yes?