wrf3@stablecross.com wrote:

>>
>> "....the Son of the Living God." Yes, it's the same.
>>
>
> "Israel is my firstborn son..." [Ex 4:22]
>
> Are they the same?
>


Yes, in the sense that Israel is a type of Christ.

Bart

((( 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. )))

In article <084.40.09.05.500504000@srcbs.org>, basicallyblues says...
>
>
>
>>At least you should
>>give credit to your resources.
>
>why?

Because it is basic to intellecual honesty. I know you find this hard to
understand, but most others in the NG _do_ understand it.

> so you can distract attention off the Bible and find fault with
>the resources?

That is a pretty poor distraction. No, that is not likely to be his reason. It
is certainly not mine.

A better reason, _especially_ when dealing with someone who is either deeply
dishonest or incredibly irresponsible, (such as yourself), is so that the reader
can check the original source and see whether or not you quoted him out of
context -- as you so often do.

> No thanks. I've learned my lesson

No, you have not learned your lesson. If you had, you would not be continuing
the deceitful practice of giving quotes without attribution, out of context.

> when dealing with
>trinitarians to not give them diversions- not give them alternate
>targets.

Then you learned the wrong 'lesson'. I wish I could say I was surprised.

> Where certain quotes come from is not important unless one
>relies on the credentials of the resource.

No, this is false. Not only that, but for you to insist on it still after you
have gotten yourself into so much trouble by insisting on this falsehood -- why
that is sheer folly. Again: we have to be able to look at where they came from
to make sure of the context, which you SO often miss or even hide. Quoting out
of context proves NOTHING -- except the obstinacy and ignorance of the quoter.

Besides: the credentials themselves _are_ still relevant. But you insist on
_hiding_ them, because once we see what 'credentials' your sources have, we will
know not to believe them.

> What I quote can be proven
>or disproven by the Bible

No, what _you_ quote cannot be proven with or without the Bible, because it is
false. When, for example, you claimed that Trinitarianism is really Platonism,
that clearly cannot be proved from the Bible, since the Bible says NOTHING about
what Platonism is

> which is where the discussion should stay
>anyway.

So you say here. But then why did you bring up citations you do not yourself
understan