YOU are Satan...

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Seth... 

How degenerating is this becoming..

Go on and keeping singing your little songs and gabbing about God on forums and praising the Lord, and then turn around and spite a brother in public behind his back. Hypocrite.

Do you think that I cannot see through this Seth?

More NAME calling from you, first I am "haughty", then my beliefs are "wishing", and now I am deduced "HYPOCRITE"... at the conclusion of you making this quite PUBLIC accusation that I have publicly SPITED a brother behind his back...

All this by a brother (you) which says he "LOVES" me? 

I love ya, just believe you are mistaken in your view of this subject)

I love you too bro. 

This is how you relate LOVE to another Seth?

Good thing YOU are not truly my judge, for if you were, I would be smeared all over the place... but I forgive you for these personal attacks... 

I did not demean Craig... I proposed that you have been researching his approach to discussion... which during DISCUSSION, demeaned another within the conversation, demoting the other's belief by often comparing that "belief" to his own... which produced comments such as you have made to me in this thread, such as "you are MISTAKEN"... 

Craigs manner of discussion is a matter of PUBLIC record... and I do not SPITE Craig by saying this, ...I note his method, which you appear to be following...  (reducing another via name-calling ["haughty+hypocrite"] and condescending commentary ["wishing"+"mistaken"] which are not viable arguements nor do they logically or spiritually address the topic  )

That you cannot see this is evidence of blindness bro...

Here is what I said:

willieH: Hi Seth... 

There isn't much point in addressing your last post other than this sorrowful portion (have you been studying under Craig?):

Wishing it will not make it so WillieH. Christ was not enticed by lust, for as it says, "he was without sin. "

YOU reduced my belief to "wishing", Seth... and that is exactly the type of thing Craig did... wherein is the "spite"?  If the "shoe fits", well you know what to do... 

It was often Craig's way to reduce another's beliefs which were in disagreement with his own, by such wordings as you chose to apply to me, above (in RED), which, if you really examine yourself brother Seth... were unnecessary...

That I do not bow down to your understandings, produces such unfounded commentary... as to name that which is SINCERELY in my heart, and has been to date researched and believed by me (whether it, in the final analysis is correct or incorrect), as... "WISHING". 

Then following that up with the accusation that I PURPOSELY demeaned Craig before all... which was not my intention... You know nothing of my heart concerning him... I love him as a brother and (God knows) have devoted much time in prayer on his behalf... even though we were often in opposition in discussion... much AS you and I are at present...

I plan to address your "apology" to the forum as well... (some "apology" -- )

...willieH 

[Seth]

willieH: Hi Seth... 

How degenerating is this becoming..

Go on and keeping singing your little songs and gabbing about God on forums and praising the Lord, and then turn around and spite a brother in public behind his back. Hypocrite.

Do you think that I cannot see through this Seth?

More NAME calling from you, first I am "haughty", then my beliefs are "wishing", and now I am deduced "HYPOCRITE"... at the conclusion of you making this quite PUBLIC accusation that I have publicly SPITED a brother behind his back...

All this by a brother (you) which says he "LOVES" me? 

I love ya, just believe you are mistaken in your view of this subject)

I love you too bro. 

This is how you relate LOVE to another Seth?

Good thing YOU are not truly my judge, for if you were, I would be smeared all over the place... but I forgive you for these personal attacks... 

I did not demean Craig... I proposed that you have been researching his approach to discussion... which during DISCUSSION, demeaned another within the conversation, demoting the other's belief by often comparing that "belief" to his own... which produced comments such as you have made to me in this thread, such as "you are MISTAKEN"... 

Craigs manner of discussion is a matter of PUBLIC record... and I do not SPITE Craig by saying this, ...I note his method, which you appear to be following...  (reducing another via name-calling ["haughty+hypocrite"] and condescending commentary ["wishing"+"mistaken"] which are not viable arguements nor do they logically or spiritually address the topic  )

That you cannot see this is evidence of blindness bro...

Here is what I said:

willieH: Hi Seth... 

There isn't much point in addressing your last post other than this sorrowful portion (have you been studying under Craig?):

Wishing it will not make it so WillieH. Christ was not enticed by lust, for as it says, "he was without sin. "

YOU reduced my belief to "wishing", Seth... and that is exactly the type of thing Craig did... wherein is the "spite"?  If the "shoe fits", well you know what to do... 

It was often Craig's way to reduce another's beliefs which were in disagreement with his own, by such wordings as you chose to apply to me, above (in RED), which, if you really examine yourself brother Seth... were unnecessary...

That I do not bow down to your understandings, produces such unfounded commentary... as to name that which is SINCERELY in my heart, and has been to date researched and believed by me (whether it, in the final analysis is correct or incorrect), as... "WISHING". 

Then following that up with the accusation that I PURPOSELY demeaned Craig before all... which was not my intention... You know nothing of my heart concerning him... I love him as a brother and (God knows) have devoted much time in prayer on his behalf... even though we were often in opposition in discussion... much AS you and I are at present...

I plan to address your "apology" to the forum as well... (some "apology" -- )

...willieH 

Sparrow is able to see the spirit in your posts to me, and she was wise to see it. At least you are here to defend yourself, and Craig was not.

This stuff has nothing to do with the topic, so I'll just leave it to the mods.

[Seth]

Paul you are not acknowledging what I said. Even if Jesus came in sinful flesh, it doesn't matter. His mind was Spiritual. He was not IN the flesh. The Bible is clear that we LOSE the ability to sin the more we enter into the Spirit, by having the flesh crucified with all it's affections and lusts. Do you know that you can be clothed in flesh, yet NOT IN the flesh? Christ could have sinful flesh, and be without sin by NOT BEING IN the flesh but in the SPIRIT.

Jesus condemned (judged) sin in the flesh. How so? By having the Holy Spirit!

His mind was Spiritual (of the Holy Spirit).  And yes He wasn't in the flesh (pertaining to abiding by the flesh).  See I have a DIFFERENT understanding of what Spirit means than you obviously.  To me Spirit is a behavior.  And the Holy Spirit is a very SPECIFIC Behavior.    Sure Jesus can have sinful flesh and be without sin but this doesn't mean that His mind never has thoughts that could lead to sin (should He not have The Spirit to overcome them).

I believe that last point is where we differ. 

Paul

You said: "To me Spirit is a behavior.  And the Holy Spirit is a very SPECIFIC Behavior. To me, this is where we differ:"

The Holy Spirit is a being (not like a third part in a trinity just in case anyone gets that impression). When I see "Holy Spirit" I see not just a behavior but God himself. WALKING by the Spirit is the behavior. HAVING the Spirit causes us to WALK by the Spirit because the Spirit HIMself, puts to death the flesh and all its lusts. You see what I mean?

The POWER of God's Spirit is why people are able to perform miracles. The Holy Spirit simply being a behavior does not cause the dead to rise, prophecy, miraculous healing etc. The Spirit is referred to as a self. But if the Holy Spirit was what you are referring to as "someone's spirit" it isn't just about BEHAVIOR:

someone's spirit as from the dictionary is:

an attitude or principle that inspires, animates, or pervades thought, feeling, or action: the spirit of reform.
the soul or heart as the seat of feelings or sentiments, or as prompting to action: a man of broken spirit.

That goes beyond behavior as in ACTION, but is the seat of our emotions. If Christ had God's Spirit in THAT way, still no sinful desires could be arisen in him.

The Spirit is our Lord. God himself IS Spirit, not just a behavior. Christ is within us BY the Spirit. The Bible shows us that "sinful thoughts" ORIGINATE with sin itself, the sin that is in our flesh. Christ not being IN the flesh, and having His father within him means that his flesh was crucified.

That is why he didn't have sinful thoughts. To be without sin means no sinful thoughts (lust) could be created by it, and it means that (this is where we DO agree) no seizing upon that lust to bring any sin forth. That Christ was without those carnal desires shows how SELFLESS his sacrifice was. He did not need to die for himself (to get rid of the desires for final) but he died FOR US.

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Seth... 

What kind of "apology" is this, Seth? 

You make it sound as if I am "discussing Craig" (as in Gossip)... and furthermore insinuate that I wish to demean him, which I DO NOT!  ...I love Craig... and when I say I love you,  I mean that as well... Your "apology" is hardly that.  It is another vehicle you seek to utilize in this conversation, to demote me.

If APOLOGY was your intent... you would leave it at... "Hey Sparrow -- you're right... I apologize for my part in this" ----> THE END!

However that is NOT "the end" is it Seth?

I mean no harm to anyone... but just as one might allude to Hitler in conversation... though we mean no harm to Hitler, ...his example serves as a reference in discussion we might refer to...

THAT kind of referral is NOT the BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION commentary within your supposed "apology":

Seth!!!
   Willie!!!

knock it off now.

I love you both.

yes, I know....
we all have our arguments about stuff.
but do it with love.

Sparrow, you are right.

If an apology was your intent Seth, then it could have concluded with the above quote, "Sparrow, you are right", but it DID NOT, did it?   It was NOT your intent to apologize... It was your intent to further the negativity as evidenced here:

I apologize to the forum for my reaction to WillieH's words. Had he not invoked Craig, I probably would not have responded, or just said "ok we disagree, thanks for the convo." But when he used Craig to jab at me, it hurt, but not for me, I hurt for Craig.

Spare me the piousness Seth... Try being honest, ...In your finger pointing above, you note the intention of this post, which is NOT apology... it is to try to name me as negative...

I did not "use Craig" to jab at you... I was alluding to the style in which you are conversing with me... is much in the same manner he used...  I DID NOT MENTION ANY details of that "manner", other than the comment about  YOU, noting my beliefs as "WISHING", was sorrowful (and it STILL IS)...

Here is my comment, Please show where I noted any details that might be derogatory to Craig:

willieH: Hi Seth... 

There isn't much point in addressing your last post other than this sorrowful portion (have you been studying under Craig?):

This only displays that you might be adopting some of Craig's ways of addressing others... nothing more.  Your commentary about my beliefs as a type of "wishing" is out of line, and it is THAT for which you should make apology...

He had issues that he even expressed he was working on etc etc. But when WillieH said that, it just reminded me how much I wish Craig the best and I hope he is happier now and in a better place in life, in his emotions etc.

We all have "issues" we are working on brother Seth... I am not without fault... but that has not inhibited you from trying to point them out (whether they are there or not), has it?

Nor is your effort concluded there, as you continue your "apology" agenda:

To me, it was just not right to bring someone's name into the conversation when he is not here. That is just gossip and hurtful to him. It was just slanderous and could serve to turn people against Craig who either don't know him or haven't met him. That was just low to me.

Where did I turn anyone "against Craig" in my comment?  I was pointing out to YOU, which you desire to avoid, that your "wishing" comment to me was out of line...

BLOWING out of proportion what I said, by noting me:

(1) a gossip (I made no gossip, just alluded to discussive mannerisms, which are true, and which YOU are using.)

(2) slanderer (I said nothing slanderous, just alluded to you studying under Craig" ... what "slander" is made in that?  It is your INSINUATIONS which are SLANDEROUS) ...

(3) hurtful (you herein step on my neck, to show yourself as "righteous" by this "display" of "great compassion" for Craig, ...by cutting me down in doing so! How is one better than the other, Seth?)...

(4) could serve to turn others against Craig (what a lot of BS... I said nothing that could turn others "against Craig".)

(5) Low... (well, all this is, is a summary of your judgment of a comment which did not contain ALL the details which YOU have endeavored to make PUBLIC)

This is an APOLOGY?  Taking me and RAKING me over the coals PUBLICLY?  This is YOUR LOVE on display for me, Seth?    I'm overwhelmed! 

But I apologize for my reaction. I reacted to that in the moment and I shouldn't have contributed to the spirit that it created.
 

I notice how you deflect any FAULT from yourself, by noting "I shouldn't have contributed to THE SPIRIT IT CREATED"...

How transparent brother.  When one apologizes in REPENTENCE... it does not include ANY other one's faults... only your own... 

That you apologized by further banging ME against the wall is a pretty HOLLOW apology... a "devil made me do it" apology, naming willieH as said "devil" 

...willieH 

[Seth]

willieH: Hi Seth... 

What kind of "apology" is this, Seth? 

You make it sound as if I am "discussing Craig" (as in Gossip)... and furthermore insinuate that I wish to demean him, which I DO NOT!  ...I love Craig... and when I say I love you,  I mean that as well... Your "apology" is hardly that.  It is another vehicle you seek to utilize in this conversation, to demote me.

If APOLOGY was your intent... you would leave it at... "Hey Sparrow -- you're right... I apologize for my part in this" ----> THE END!

However that is NOT "the end" is it Seth?

I mean no harm to anyone... but just as one might allude to Hitler in conversation... though we mean no harm to Hitler, ...his example serves as a reference in discussion we might refer to...

THAT kind of referral is NOT the BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION commentary within your supposed "apology":

Seth!!!
   Willie!!!

knock it off now.

I love you both.

yes, I know....
we all have our arguments about stuff.
but do it with love.

Sparrow, you are right.

If an apology was your intent Seth, then it could have concluded with the above quote, "Sparrow, you are right", but it DID NOT, did it?   It was NOT your intent to apologize... It was your intent to further the negativity as evidenced here:

I apologize to the forum for my reaction to WillieH's words. Had he not invoked Craig, I probably would not have responded, or just said "ok we disagree, thanks for the convo." But when he used Craig to jab at me, it hurt, but not for me, I hurt for Craig.

Spare me the piousness Seth... Try being honest, ...In your finger pointing above, you note the intention of this post, which is NOT apology... it is to try to name me as negative...

I did not "use Craig" to jab at you... I was alluding to the style in which you are conversing with me... is much in the same manner he used...  I DID NOT MENTION ANY details of that "manner", other than the comment about  YOU, noting my beliefs as "WISHING", was sorrowful (and it STILL IS)...

Here is my comment, Please show where I noted any details that might be derogatory to Craig:

willieH: Hi Seth... 

There isn't much point in addressing your last post other than this sorrowful portion (have you been studying under Craig?):

This only displays that you might be adopting some of Craig's ways of addressing others... nothing more.  Your commentary about my beliefs as a type of "wishing" is out of line, and it is THAT for which you should make apology...

He had issues that he even expressed he was working on etc etc. But when WillieH said that, it just reminded me how much I wish Craig the best and I hope he is happier now and in a better place in life, in his emotions etc.

We all have "issues" we are working on brother Seth... I am not without fault... but that has not inhibited you from trying to point them out (whether they are there or not), has it?

Nor is your effort concluded there, as you continue your "apology" agenda:

To me, it was just not right to bring someone's name into the conversation when he is not here. That is just gossip and hurtful to him. It was just slanderous and could serve to turn people against Craig who either don't know him or haven't met him. That was just low to me.

Where did I turn anyone "against Craig" in my comment?  I was pointing out to YOU, which you desire to avoid, that your "wishing" comment to me was out of line...

BLOWING out of proportion what I said, by noting me:

(1) a gossip (I made no gossip, just alluded to discussive mannerisms, which are true, and which YOU are using.)

(2) slanderer (I said nothing slanderous, just alluded to you studying under Craig" ... what "slander" is made in that?  It is your INSINUATIONS which are SLANDEROUS) ...

(3) hurtful (you herein step on my neck, to show yourself as "righteous" by this "display" of "great compassion" for Craig, ...by cutting me down in doing so! How is one better than the other, Seth?)...

(4) could serve to turn others against Craig (what a lot of BS... I said nothing that could turn others "against Craig".)

(5) Low... (well, all this is, is a summary of your judgment of a comment which did not contain ALL the details which YOU have endeavored to make PUBLIC)

This is an APOLOGY?  Taking me and RAKING me over the coals PUBLICLY?  This is YOUR LOVE on display for me, Seth?    I'm overwhelmed! 

But I apologize for my reaction. I reacted to that in the moment and I shouldn't have contributed to the spirit that it created.
 

I notice how you deflect any FAULT from yourself, by noting "I shouldn't have contributed to THE SPIRIT IT CREATED"...

How transparent brother.  When one apologizes in REPENTENCE... it does not include ANY other one's faults... only your own... 

That you apologized by further banging ME against the wall is a pretty HOLLOW apology... a "devil made me do it" apology, naming willieH as said "devil" 

...willieH 

Again WillieH, Sparrow was able to see the attitude in your posts to me up to this point. My apology was for MY BEHAVIOR. Bringing Craig into this was wrong. But my reaction to that was where I needed to apologize. So I did. I apologized  for my actions.

That however, does not mean I don't think that what you did was tantamount to gossip and slander, but that I shouldn't have reacted to it and fed into it.

[willieH]

willieH:  

Sparrow is able to see the spirit in your posts to me, and she was wise to see it. At least you are here to defend yourself, and Craig was not.

Please do not try to use sister Sparrow against me Seth... I am capable of hearing her words... and they were intended for both of us, as she (being the sweet and peaceful one she is) sees an agitated interaction between us... and wishes it to subside...

As far as the SPIRIT in my posts, it is SINCERE... You have tried to demean it with comments such as "haughty" (arrogance), "mistaken" (teaching), "hypocrite" (as if you have no hypocrisy), and then naming my beliefs as "WISHING"...

I said nothing derogatory about Craig, just asked if you have been studying under him... You have WAY overexaggerated my reference to him...

I forgive you for all of the above...  

...willieH  

[Seth]

willieH:  

Sparrow is able to see the spirit in your posts to me, and she was wise to see it. At least you are here to defend yourself, and Craig was not.

Please do not try to use sister Sparrow against me Seth... I am capable of hearing her words... and they were intended for both of us, as she (being the sweet and peaceful one she is) sees an agitated interaction between us... and wishes it to subside...

As far as the SPIRIT in my posts, it is SINCERE... You have tried to demean it with comments such as "haughty" (arrogance), "mistaken" (teaching), "hypocrite" (as if you have no hypocrisy), and then naming my beliefs as "WISHING"...

I said nothing derogatory about Craig, just asked if you have been studying under him... You have WAY overexaggerated my reference to him...

I forgive you for all of the above...  

...willieH  

She simply acknowledged your tendency to jump on people. You are doing right now. Again, this all has nothing to do with the topic, so I will let the mods handle it.

[willieH]

willieH:  

Again SETH!  --

Again WillieH, Sparrow was able to see the attitude in your posts to me up to this point. My apology was for MY BEHAVIOR. Bringing Craig into this was wrong. But my reaction to that was where I needed to apologize. So I did. I apologized  for my actions.

That however, does not mean I don't think that what you did was tantamount to gossip and slander, but that I shouldn't have reacted to it and fed into it.

Tantamount?    

Come on bro... you are clinging to something which is ridiculous, and it is YOU which have demeaned me several times, for which you are UNAPOLOGETIC... so please, ...get off your "righteous" pedestal  

Name the slander and gossip... referring to you as possibly "studying under him", is not gossip...

You have slandered me several times in this convo, as well as demeaned my faith...  

...willieH  

[Seth]

willieH:  

Again SETH!  --

Again WillieH, Sparrow was able to see the attitude in your posts to me up to this point. My apology was for MY BEHAVIOR. Bringing Craig into this was wrong. But my reaction to that was where I needed to apologize. So I did. I apologized  for my actions.

That however, does not mean I don't think that what you did was tantamount to gossip and slander, but that I shouldn't have reacted to it and fed into it.

Tantamount?    

Come on bro... you are clinging to something which is ridiculous, and it is YOU which have demeaned me several times, for which you are UNAPOLOGETIC... so please, ...get off your "righteous" pedestal  

Name the slander and gossip... referring to you as possibly "studying under him", is not gossip...

You have slandered me several times in this convo, as well as demeaned my faith...  

...willieH  

You just attack, attack, attack. You just keep going and going and going....

[willieH]

willieH: Hi sister S...

Just wanted to make a quick reply to your post here:

and Willie... now, you know I love ya... but come on give a brother a break. Just let him share without y'know... jumping on him. We're all God's children. And we ALL see through the glass darkly.

Good counsel sis... 

Even though Seth has belittled my faith to "WISHING" and that he has noted me as a HYPOCRITE, a GOSSIP, a SLANDERER, as well as MISTAKEN, and "HAUGHTY" (arrogant), I do believe you to be correct... 

Sorry if our conversation has been hard on you and others here... I apologize for my part.

...willieH 

[willieH]

willieH: 

You just attack, attack, attack. You just keep going and going and going....

It was YOU which have demeaned (attacked) me, Seth...

You don't see it?  --- You don't see it.

I'm done with you.  And in that, I wish you no ill... 

...willieH 

[Seth]

willieH: 

You just attack, attack, attack. You just keep going and going and going....

It was YOU which have demeaned (attacked) me, Seth...

You don't see it?  --- You don't see it.

I'm done with you.  And in that, I wish you no ill... 

...willieH 

Ok. I wish you no ill will either. 

[trettep]

Paul you are not acknowledging what I said. Even if Jesus came in sinful flesh, it doesn't matter. His mind was Spiritual. He was not IN the flesh. The Bible is clear that we LOSE the ability to sin the more we enter into the Spirit, by having the flesh crucified with all it's affections and lusts. Do you know that you can be clothed in flesh, yet NOT IN the flesh? Christ could have sinful flesh, and be without sin by NOT BEING IN the flesh but in the SPIRIT.

Jesus condemned (judged) sin in the flesh. How so? By having the Holy Spirit!

His mind was Spiritual (of the Holy Spirit).  And yes He wasn't in the flesh (pertaining to abiding by the flesh).  See I have a DIFFERENT understanding of what Spirit means than you obviously.  To me Spirit is a behavior.  And the Holy Spirit is a very SPECIFIC Behavior.    Sure Jesus can have sinful flesh and be without sin but this doesn't mean that His mind never has thoughts that could lead to sin (should He not have The Spirit to overcome them).

I believe that last point is where we differ. 

Paul

You said: "To me Spirit is a behavior.  And the Holy Spirit is a very SPECIFIC Behavior. To me, this is where we differ:"

The Holy Spirit is a being (not like a third part in a trinity just in case anyone gets that impression). When I see "Holy Spirit" I see not just a behavior but God himself. WALKING by the Spirit is the behavior. HAVING the Spirit causes us to WALK by the Spirit because the Spirit HIMself, puts to death the flesh and all its lusts. You see what I mean?

The POWER of God's Spirit is why people are able to perform miracles. The Holy Spirit simply being a behavior does not cause the dead to rise, prophecy, miraculous healing etc. The Spirit is referred to as a self. But if the Holy Spirit was what you are referring to as "someone's spirit" it isn't just about BEHAVIOR:

someone's spirit as from the dictionary is:

an attitude or principle that inspires, animates, or pervades thought, feeling, or action: the spirit of reform.
the soul or heart as the seat of feelings or sentiments, or as prompting to action: a man of broken spirit.

That goes beyond behavior as in ACTION, but is the seat of our emotions. If Christ had God's Spirit in THAT way, still no sinful desires could be arisen in him.

The Spirit is our Lord. God himself IS Spirit, not just a behavior. Christ is within us BY the Spirit. The Bible shows us that "sinful thoughts" ORIGINATE with sin itself, the sin that is in our flesh. Christ not being IN the flesh, and having His father within him means that his flesh was crucified.

That is why he didn't have sinful thoughts. To be without sin means no sinful thoughts (lust) could be created by it, and it means that (this is where we DO agree) no seizing upon that lust to bring any sin forth. That Christ was without those carnal desires shows how SELFLESS his sacrifice was. He did not need to die for himself (to get rid of the desires for final) but he died FOR US.

Seth, I know we disagree about this.  I continue to declare a Jesus that is much more like a man than the one that you preach.  You do agree don't you?

Paul

[Seth]

No I don't agree with that. We both preach Jesus the man. I think the Jesus you preach is more like a man whose flesh was not slain by the Spirit. I preach a Jesus in the absence sin.

I preach "the visible image of the invisible God." 

[trettep]

Seth, when you get a chance please describe the two spirits here:

Rom 8:16  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Paul

[Seth]

The Spirit itSELF bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are children of God.

The Holy Spirit is invisible. So it bears witness with our renewed frame of mind that we have become begotten of it as his Children.

[trettep]

willieH:  

Sparrow is able to see the spirit in your posts to me, and she was wise to see it. At least you are here to defend yourself, and Craig was not.

Please do not try to use sister Sparrow against me Seth... I am capable of hearing her words... and they were intended for both of us, as she (being the sweet and peaceful one she is) sees an agitated interaction between us... and wishes it to subside...

As far as the SPIRIT in my posts, it is SINCERE... You have tried to demean it with comments such as "haughty" (arrogance), "mistaken" (teaching), "hypocrite" (as if you have no hypocrisy), and then naming my beliefs as "WISHING"...

I said nothing derogatory about Craig, just asked if you have been studying under him... You have WAY overexaggerated my reference to him...

I forgive you for all of the above...  

...willieH  

She simply acknowledged your tendency to jump on people. You are doing right now. Again, this all has nothing to do with the topic, so I will let the mods handle it.

I haven't seen where Willie has been disrespectful Seth.  You both have two opposing views and both trying to persaude the other of the "light" in your viewpoints.  This is how debate works.  Now if one of you has the "Light" and the other is in opposition then one of you has "darkness".  So it should be very important to seek out that Light and for that to happen, there needs to be a warm embrace towards mutual edification and not self pontification.  Now we all have a place in the Kingdom but lets embrace each other as brothers for WE ARE INDEED BROTHERS not just now but FOREVERMORE.  

Now I have said Seth that we are in disagreement, not to hinder the discussion on this topic with you but that we might seek out a piece of Light that we can follow a path from together.

Paul

[jabcat]

This is not applied to willie or seth, but going along with what jabcat and sparrow is saying.

People are going to be afraid to ask questions and share their points of view if the authority attitude of knowing "all" is what they're going to get. People want answers, but they want to know that they are not the only one's with hard questions about our Father. Most of us have been through a lot to be where we are now. The babylonian church systems, false teachings that seem to be burned in our minds, loss of fellowship, etc. I think for the most part we do a good job of nurturing people hear. But it's definitely something we need to stay diligent in. Let's just make this a reminder of that.

Grace and peace,

Brandon

[trettep]

No I don't agree with that. We both preach Jesus the man. I think the Jesus you preach is more like a man whose flesh was not slain by the Spirit. I preach a Jesus in the absence sin.

I preach "the visible image of the invisible God." 

But the question is "more" like a man.  The Jesus I'm preaching is definately MORE like man then the one your preaching.  The Jesus I'm preaching can actually have evil thoughts in His heart.  Man does that.  The Jesus you preach doesn't have desires that need to be supressed by the Holy Spirit. 

Paul

[Seth]

Now I have said Seth that we are in disagreement, not to hinder the discussion on this topic with you but that we might seek out a piece of Light that we can follow a path from together.

Paul

I agree. I have learned many things by being part of this forum. And as I said, I have seen AWESOME observations from you that I agree with. This we disagree with. You demeanor to me is respectful and even if it was not I would try (and sometimes I fail) to remain intact and not give in to my own temptations  

That is why I like talking to you about it. We don't have to agree, but we will learn even in our disagreements if we remain in one. That is what I hope for anyway.

[trettep]

The Spirit itSELF bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are children of God.

The Holy Spirit is invisible. So it bears witness with our renewed frame of mind that we have become begotten of it as his Children.

The word "spirit" is used in both parts of that verse.  So the word "spirit" there has to mean the same thing.  Don't you agree?

So if we take what your saying and substitute for the first word spirit as the definition of the word spirit you gave for the second instance we would have:

The seat of emotions, frame of mind, bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are the Children of God.

Isn't that correct?

Paul

[Seth]

The Spirit itSELF bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are children of God.

The Holy Spirit is invisible. So it bears witness with our renewed frame of mind that we have become begotten of it as his Children.

The word "spirit" is used in both parts of that verse.  So the word "spirit" there has to mean the same thing.  Don't you agree?

So if we take what your saying and substitute for the first word spirit as the definition of the word spirit you gave for the second instance we would have:

The seat of emotions, frame of mind, bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are the Children of God.

Isn't that correct?

Paul

Not necessarily. In your opinion, why are there multiple entries in a dictionary?

[jabcat]

This is not applied to willie or seth, but going along with what jabcat and sparrow is saying.

People are going to be afraid to ask questions and share their points of view if the authority attitude of knowing "all" is what they're going to get. People want answers, but they want to know that they are not the only one's with hard questions about our Father. Most of us have been through a lot to be where we are now. The babylonian church systems, false teachings that seem to be burned in our minds, loss of fellowship, etc. I think for the most part we do a good job of nurturing people hear. But it's definitely something we need to stay diligent in. Let's just make this a reminder of that.

Grace and peace,

Brandon

Amen Brandon.

Also Brother Paul (not picking on you, using as an example) , you mention "this is how debate works".  We probably mostly have either missed it, or many of us (all/me) forget it.  But as a general "rule", debate is actually discouraged on TM since approximately the past 6-8 months.  PERSONALLY, MY PERSONAL opinion is, there is VERY little room for all-out debate in the body of Christ.  I think it's WAY too easy to either get into the wrong spirit, come across as a bad witness (let not your good be evil spoken of/give no occasion to stumble), or at least be perceived that way.  We are indeed to contend for sound doctrine, to "declare and teach these things", etc., but (there may be and I just don't know it) I know of no place in scripture where actual debate is encouraged.

In my opinion, when I dig my heels in and debate, I'm very likely going to end up eventually making a fool of myself.  Because many of the things I'm so adamant and dogmatic about today (even to the point of forgetting that my main task is to love you as myself) I will be corrected on later by the Father and shown a more accurate, excellent way.  And bottom line, even though we often act as if it's not the case, as Sparrow said, we ALL see through a glass darkly.

Maybe because I've been so guilty (to use a Paulinian phrase, the "chiefest of sinners") my personal reaction to someone coming across as a "know-it-all"/a teacher/there's just no possiblity I could be wrong here, etc., is actually quite negative.  I walk away with a bad taste in my mouth, and actually may end up giving less credence (or paying less attention) to what they (I) do say.  When I do it myself, I've usually painted myself into a corner, end up needing to apologize, and "eat crow".  Not very appetizing.  

There's a whole feast spread before us if we share and partake in the love and gentleness of our Example.

[trettep]

The Spirit itSELF bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are children of God.

The Holy Spirit is invisible. So it bears witness with our renewed frame of mind that we have become begotten of it as his Children.

The word "spirit" is used in both parts of that verse.  So the word "spirit" there has to mean the same thing.  Don't you agree?

So if we take what your saying and substitute for the first word spirit as the definition of the word spirit you gave for the second instance we would have:

The seat of emotions, frame of mind, bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are the Children of God.

Isn't that correct?

Paul

Not necessarily. In your opinion, why are there multiple entries in a dictionary?

But let's get down to specifics here Seth.  Because it is the specifics that can't reveal falsehood.  I am going to use your words to debate you.  I often use this tactic.  Now let's get more specific.  You say that the words might "not necessarily" mean the same in that verse.  So please define each one.  Refer to the first instance as "spirit definition1" and "spirit definition2" respectively for the occurences in that verse so we can better understand.  Because this verse is VERY important because as I READ it - there are TWO spirits being mentioned there and I understand them in a manner that is potentially very different than what you may preach to others and if we are about mutual edification into the Faith so that we all are of the same mind (that which is in Jesus Christ) then we can't all have opposing views and should work this out to eliminate the darkness that we may possess.

So please define those as you see them in concise but to the point descriptions if you will.

Paul

[Seth]

The Spirit itSELF bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are children of God.

The Holy Spirit is invisible. So it bears witness with our renewed frame of mind that we have become begotten of it as his Children.

The word "spirit" is used in both parts of that verse.  So the word "spirit" there has to mean the same thing.  Don't you agree?

So if we take what your saying and substitute for the first word spirit as the definition of the word spirit you gave for the second instance we would have:

The seat of emotions, frame of mind, bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are the Children of God.

Isn't that correct?

Paul

Paul, tell me your thoughts on this statement: "These boxes are not very light. Can you turn on the light?"