[RomanK]

Re: Introductions are in order!

D/\mn skippy, I would rather listen to someone who expresses their own piece of self, and wisdom from within, as it is obviously connected to god, than a preacher who reads from a book about other peoples beliefs that they have had to learn, mutate, and manipulate into a reasonable and conscious choice, while leaving any sign of environmental and rational constructs behind.

[Phebe Carlyle]

Re: Introductions are in order!

\/ do u like my signiture!

I don't know what a signiture is, but your signature line is not from the KJV1611 and as such, is not only a per-version of God's Word, but in turn a false reading of His word, by YOU.

YIC

Mrs Phebe Dewitt.

[RomanK]

Re: Introductions are in order!

O.K. then show me the exact scripture where it says otherwise!

[metallica]

Re: Introductions are in order!

watch out, information Nazi on the prowl!

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Introductions are in order!

O.K. then show me the exact scripture where it says otherwise!

While the sentiment you express seems consistent with what the bible says Ms Phibes is taking exception to you rewording it.

Matthew 1:23

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

[Phebe Carlyle]

Re: Introductions are in order!

O.K. then show me the exact scripture where it says otherwise!

Your lack of understanding sir is amusing and your cherry picking is just down right pathetic.

Matthew 1:23

Behold, a Uirgin shall be with childe, and shall bring foorth a sonne, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted, is, God with vs.


In the prophecy of the virgin birth, Isaiah 7:14, the prophet Isaiah declared,

Therefore the Lord himselfe shal giue you a signe: Behold, a Uirgine shall conceiue and beare a Sonne, and shall call his name Immanuel.

This prophecy refers to the birth of Jesus in Matthew 1:21-22: (PRIOR TO YOUR cherry-picking single verse nonsense)

21 And she shall bring forth a sonne, and thou shalt call his Name Iesus: for hee shall saue his people from their sinnes.

22(Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, saying,

YIC

Mrs Phebe Dewitt.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Introductions are in order!

Your lack of understanding sir is amusing and your cherry picking is just down right pathetic.

Matthew 1:23

Behold, a Uirgin shall be with childe, and shall bring foorth a sonne, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted, is, God with vs.


In the prophecy of the virgin birth, Isaiah 7:14, the prophet Isaiah declared,

Therefore the Lord himselfe shal giue you a signe: Behold, a Uirgine shall conceiue and beare a Sonne, and shall call his name Immanuel.

This prophecy refers to the birth of Jesus in Matthew 1:21-22: (PRIOR TO YOUR cherry-picking single verse nonsense)

21 And she shall bring forth a sonne, and thou shalt call his Name Iesus: for hee shall saue his people from their sinnes.

22(Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, saying,

YIC

Mrs Phebe Dewitt.

So let me get this straight Phibes, your imaginary friend told Isaiah about the virgin birth and at that time liked the name Emmanuel, but by the time he knocked Mary up he had changed his mind and wanted to go with Jesus?

Did it have anything to do with your imaginary friend realising that if he stayed with Emmanuel there would be some confusion in the 1970's with some soft porn films?

[handmaiden]

Re: Introductions are in order!

Did it have anything to do with your imaginary friend realising that if he stayed with Emmanuel there would be some confusion in the 1970's with some soft porn films?

That last statement is utter gobbledy gook.

All porn is hard porn. If it's soft, there can be no porn.



Correctingly Yours,

Handmaiden

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Introductions are in order!

That last statement is utter gobbledy gook.

All porn is hard porn. If it's soft, there can be no porn.



Correctingly Yours,

Handmaiden

Ok then Mien Handy "1970's erotic, adult cinema."

[Lisa H]

Re: Introductions are in order!

So let me get this straight Phibes, your imaginary friend told Isaiah about the virgin birth and at that time liked the name Emmanuel, but by the time he knocked Mary up he had changed his mind and wanted to go with Jesus?

Did it have anything to do with your imaginary friend realising that if he stayed with Emmanuel there would be some confusion in the 1970's with some soft porn films?

Why are you talking about porn films. What sick fantasy's are you having now.

[Phebe Carlyle]

Re: Introductions are in order!

So let me get this straight Phibes, your imaginary friend told Isaiah about the virgin birth and at that time liked the name Emmanuel, but by the time he knocked Mary up he had changed his mind and wanted to go with Jesus?

Did it have anything to do with your imaginary friend realising that if he stayed with Emmanuel there would be some confusion in the 1970's with some soft porn films?

I doubt you could get anything straight pasta-pete, least of all this!


There are many names given to Jesus using the phrase "and His name shall be called" both in the Old and New Testaments. This was a common way of saying that people would refer to Him in these various ways. Isaiah prophesied of the Messiah:

Isaiah 9:6

For vnto vs a child is borne, vnto vs a Sonne is giuen, and the gouernment shalbe vpon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderfull, Counseller, The mightie God, The euerlasting Father, The Prince of peace.

These were descriptions people would use to refer to Him forever. Luke tells us Jesus “and His name shall be called" the Son of the Highest”:

Luke 1:32

He shall be great, and shall be called the sonne of the Highest,

In Luke 1:35:


And the Angel answered and said vnto her, The holy Ghost shall come vpon thee, and the power of the Highest shall ouershadow thee. Therefore also that holy thing which shall bee borne of thee, shall bee called the sonne of God.

In Luke 1:76:

Luke 1:76

And thou childe shalt bee called the Prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt goe before the face of the Lord to prepare his wayes.

I suppose to help make it more simple for you, it's like you being Jo Freddie but you are also called pirate-pete, pasta-boy, homer of the high-seas, Fuscilli freddie, just to name a few.

Got it now?

YIC

Mrs Phebe Dewitt.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Introductions are in order!

I suppose to help make it more simple for you, it's like you being Jo Freddie but you are also called pirate-pete, pasta-boy, homer of the high-seas, Fuscilli freddie, just to name a few.

Got it now?

YIC

Mrs Phebe Dewitt.

I see Ms Phibes, like you call your special book "The KJV1611 bible" and I use the more accurate name "The KJV - Collected Fairy Tales" or "KJV-CFT"

[Phebe Carlyle]

Re: Introductions are in order!

I see Ms Phibes, like you call your special book "The KJV1611 bible" and I use the more accurate name "The KJV - Collected Fairy Tales" or "KJV-CFT"

The onus is on you to prove the KJV 1611 is a book of mere fairy tales, you swashbuckling snot.

If you do want to discuss it, why not create your own thread on it, rather than derailing yet ANOTHER thread.

YIC

Mrs Phebe Dewitt.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Introductions are in order!

The onus is on you to prove the KJV 1611 is a book of mere fairy tales, you swashbuckling snot.

If you do want to discuss it, why not create your own thread on it, rather than derailing yet ANOTHER thread.

YIC

Mrs Phebe Dewitt.

I do not feel the urge to start a thread about the fact that black is not white so why should I start one about an equally valid fact?

As for derailing this topic was it not you that questioned RomanK's interpretation of Matthew 1:23 in the first place Ms Phibes?

I don't know what a signiture is, but your signature line is not from the KJV1611 and as such, is not only a per-version of God's Word, but in turn a false reading of His word, by YOU.

YIC

Mrs Phebe Dewitt.

[Phebe Carlyle]

Re: Introductions are in order!

I do not feel the urge to start a thread about the fact that black is not white so why should I start one about an equally valid fact?

As for derailing this topic was it not you that questioned RomanK's interpretation of Matthew 1:23 in the first place Ms Phibes?

RomanK asked the question as to what people thought about it signature. So I told him. THAT is not derailing the thread when I responded to a question asked BY THE OP writer!

sheesh you are difficult.

Why aren't you at a pastafarian forum or do you get tired of arguing with yourself over there?

YIC

Mrs Phebe Dewitt.