- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
17 May 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @divegeesterThis is not the ONLY place where it the golden lampstands and the Triune God are discussed. There are plenty of messages where that was talked about from LSM.
http://www.ministrysamples.org/excerpts/THE-GOLDEN-LAMPSTAND-SYMBOLIZING-THE-TRIUNE-GOD.HTML
Cite your sources sonship, your plagiarism is poor form.
I did generally site two books didn't I. WITH their authors, didn't I? Above I wrote -
I never could have seen this myself. It was noticed, I think by some Brethren teachers of the 19th century who were known for their scholarship in Church history. I first learned this method of interpretation from Watchman Nee's book The Orthodoxy of the Church an exposition of Revelation 2 and 3.
Then I learned even more from the Life Study of Revelation by Witness Lee. The footnotes of the Recovery Version contain many of those illuminating notes.
So don't be all too impressed that you come around with "Site sources. Site sources".
I already did.
17 May 18
Originally posted by @sonshipYour vanity and plagiarism of other people’s ideas turns the excitement of gospel into a tepid gruel.
This is not the ONLY place where it the golden lampstands and the Triune God are discussed. There are plenty of messages where that was talked about from LSM.
I did generally site two books didn't I. WITH their authors, didn't I? Above I wrote -
[quote] I never could have seen this myself. It was noticed, I think by some Brethren teachers of the 19 ...[text shortened]... be all too impressed that you come around with "Site sources. Site sources".
I did.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
17 May 18
2 edits
Who here does not count this as giving credit to others for some things being written by me here?
I never could have seen this myself. It was noticed, I think by some Brethren teachers of the 19th century who were known for their scholarship in Church history. I first learned this method of interpretation from Watchman Nee's book The Orthodoxy of the Church an exposition of Revelation 2 and 3.
Then I learned even more from the Life Study of Revelation by Witness Lee. The footnotes of the Recovery Version contain many of those illuminating notes.
Jivegeester is SO salivating to accuse me of plagiarism. But can't any reasonable reader SEE from the above paragraphs that I am crediting other sources beside myself for many of the teachings I want to discuss here ?
So, beside Divegeester, who ELSE wants to argue that I am PRETENDING that certain teachings are ALL original, dishonestly ?
Please read it again -
I never could have seen this myself. It was noticed, I think by some Brethren teachers of the 19th century who were known for their scholarship in Church history. I first learned this method of interpretation from Watchman Nee's book The Orthodoxy of the Church an exposition of Revelation 2 and 3.
Then I learned even more from the Life Study of Revelation by Witness Lee. The footnotes of the Recovery Version contain many of those illuminating notes.
It is curious to me that Jivegeester dust off this accusation and recycles it for new usage when he has NEVER had the ground to do so.
I am beginning to think the entire pre-occupation with calling me a plagiarist is huge psychological projection of his own tendencies.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
17 May 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @divegeesterYou couple your false and defamatory accusation with "vanity" because you realize you have no logical ground for the other accusation - plagiarism.
Your vanity and plagiarism of other people’s ideas turns the excitement of gospel into a tepid gruel.
Playing it safe you throw in there something more subjective - "vanity" - entirely a subjective matter of opinion on your part.
You know you cannot stand upon the charge of plagiarism. So to play it safe for your vain self, you couple it with "vanity."
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
17 May 18
3 edits
Jivegeester,
Before you chimed in I ALREADY sited two important sources. I am DELIGHTED utterly that anyone go DIRECTLY to those sources. That is a WIN / WIN for me. ENJOY!
The Life Study of Revelation by Witness Lee
https://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?id=0898C2
The Orthodoxy of the Church by Watchman Nee
https://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?id=0599
HEY! Save yourself time. Go right to some good sources,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Not EVERYTHING you read written here by me discussing Revelation is necessarily to be found in those two publications.
I do do some analysis and exposition on my own before the Lord.
AND this TOO was indicated above when I wrote THIS ---
These Christians gave God's people the main keys. Upon using the keys of enlightenment much more can be opened up, AS they intended. I believe, as the Holy Spirit intended.
Ie. " Here are some keys. God will take you even further. "
18 May 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @sonshipSonship you are vain. You are vain about how you perceive yourself here as a “teacher”. You are not a teacher, you are a reciter of other people’s ideas and you should fully cite the source and credit them.
You couple your false and defamatory accusation with "vanity" because you realize you have no logical ground for the other accusation - plagiarism.
Playing it safe you throw in there something more subjective - "vanity" - entirely a subjective matter of opinion on your part.
You know you cannot stand upon the charge of plagiarism. So to play it safe for your vain self, you couple it with "vanity."
You did casually mention thee books in your initial post, but unless you are called out you are not immediately and properly recognising the authors as the originators of the ideas you are presenting, the reason is vanity. You like to present these ideas as your own. I’ve been challenging you about this for a few years now.
It was only after a year of debate and intense scrutiny that you eventually acknowledged that the phases “the lost will be hung in chains of punishment as a warning to those on other worlds” and “the lost will glorify him in their endless woe” were not your own but from a book! And then it was only you deflecting from the challenges you were getting about using such truly awful incoherent rhetoric.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
18 May 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterIs this really important, tiger? Why are you constantly so negative lately? Always trying to buttonhole believers and run them down. Haven’t you passed initiation into the atheists’ cool club yet?
Sonship you are vain. You are vain about how you perceive yourself here as a “teacher”. You are not a teacher, you are a reciter of other people’s ideas and you should fully cite the source and credit them.
You did casually mention thee books in your initial post, but unless you are called out you are not immediately and properly recognising the aut ...[text shortened]... eflecting from the challenges you were getting about using such truly awful incoherent rhetoric.
18 May 18
Originally posted by @romans1009You have some doubts. To your credit.
... Haven’t you passed initiation into the atheists’ cool club yet?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
18 May 18
Originally posted by @apathistHow would you know? You probably never read it.
Btw, 'Quality Questions on Revelation' is kind of an extreme case of stupid.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
18 May 18
8 edits
Originally posted by @divegeester
You are vain about how you perceive yourself here as a “teacher”.
What is wrong with being a "teacher" ?
Didn't the Bible say that "[God] gave some ... teachers?"
"And He Himself gave some as apostles and some as prophets and some as evangelists and some as shepherds and teachers. " (Eph. 4:11)
So are you faulting God on general principle that He gave some "shepherds and teachers" ?
Who here has not done some activity of teaching?
I think you're whining to complain "Sonship, you think you're some teacher!" " Oooo, Oooooo a TEACHER!
You think you're a TEACHER. "
I'm suppose instead to be an amiable bloke with no opinion, off to the bar ? Leave "teaching" to the clerical class ?
I am a disciples of Jesus who among other things occasionally does some teaching.
" But to each one [in the Body of Christ] is given the manifestation of the Spirit for what is profitable.
For to one through the Spirit a word of wisdom is given, and to another a word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit, ... etc. (1 Cor. 11:7,8)
What's with this telling Christians "Christian - Thou Shalt Not Be a Teacher". You don't have to be taught.
There are some of us pursuing Spirituality here involving the God of the BIble. So we teach each other. What's your problem?
Paul encouraged Christians to exercise spiritual gifts for building up one another.
"But now brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you, unless I speak to you either in revelation or in knowledge or in prophecy or in TEACHING? "(1 Cor. 14:6)
And as for the ones whom God wants to bring to Christ ?
"Go therefore and disciple all the nations, ... TEACHING them ... " (See Matthew 28:19,20)
You are vain about how you perceive yourself here as a “teacher”. You are not a teacher, you are a reciter of other people’s ideas and you should fully cite the source and credit them.
Who said my teaching has to be 100% ORIGINAL?
Site the Forum Rule stating one cannot teach what one received from others?
So I teach the same way as some mightily used servants of God? What's wrong with that? Paul told Timothy "not to teach differently".
" Even as I exhorted you, when I was going into Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus in order that you may charge certain ones not to teach different things." (1 Timothy 1:3, RcV)
You're complaint is silly and flimsy.
Did I say that I was the ONLY one around here that can teach?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
18 May 18
You are vain about how you perceive yourself here as a “teacher”. You are not a teacher, you are a reciter of other people’s ideas and you should fully cite the source and credit them.
Oh, that must be the reason that early in this thread I wrote -
I never could have seen this myself. It was noticed, I think by some Brethren teachers of the 19th century who were known for their scholarship in Church history. I first learned this method of interpretation from Watchman Nee's book The Orthodoxy of the Church an exposition of Revelation 2 and 3.
I do not have to be a dicta phone.
As I have both lived and become acquainted with teachings and their positive effect on my Christian life, I can convey them, often referring interested parties to source writings where they can examine influences on me.
I do not have to be a dicta-phone linking every word, every sentence, every paragraph to the VERBATIM source. It would be impossible. I am filled with these teachings.
No liar can say I have no adequately referred to publications from which I derived some ideas discussed.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
18 May 18
6 edits
We might as well put the cards on the table.
Divegeester has always been mad with me because biblically he could not DISprove a belief in eternal punishment was reasonable to understand via the words of the Bible.
Being unable to refute me he has concentrated on going after me personally, ad hom style.
He's mad at me because I believe at face value Revelation 20:10, 15. Plagiarism, sadistic prose (to him), faulting me for not running through the streets yelling about fire, ... all these are his outlet for his annoyance that he couldn't refute my exposition of Revelation 20:10,15.
I think he has never gotten over that AND that he could not refute me with the Scriptures on the Triune God.
I think he's never gotten over that.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
18 May 18
Originally posted by @sonship“Don’t jump to conclusions – there may be a perfectly good explanation for what you just saw.”
How would you know? You probably never read it.
Proverbs 25:8