Proof-Texting. Did Jesus use it? How should it be used?

[djconklin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by djconklin
Who was this professor and in what class did he say it?

I gave that information so you would not think the idea is original with me. Last I heard he was in Texas. That was the last time we spoke on the phone about 10 years ago.

I didn't ask why you gave it. I didn't ask where he was. I didn't ask when was the last time you spoke with him. I asked two simple questions: who and in what class. I can answer those questions when they are put to me. Why can't you?

 

[djconklin]

Conklin, is it really that hard to distinguish between a JOKE and a STATEMENT OF FACT?

Maybe the next time you tell a knock-knock joke I'll demand documentation and evidence that proves whoever you say is behind the door actually is.

Sheesh.

I'd swear ab't half my email is coming from lurkers who see this site!

They're onto you Night. They recognize the game for what it is.

 

[TrustAndObey]

My interpretation of a proof text has always been something like this:

Anonymous: God is not the God of the dead.

TrustAndObey: Jesus is Lord of both the living and the dead.

Anonymous: NO HE IS NOT!

TrustAndObey: Yes, He is.

Anonymous: Prove it.

TrustAndObey: Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

Anonymous: <leaves thread and never comes back. Doesn't COMMENT mind you, just leaves>

Voila! Proof text!

 

[sentipente]

I didn't ask why you gave it. I didn't ask where he was. I didn't ask when was the last time you spoke with him. I asked two simple questions: who and in what class. I can answer those questions when they are put to me. Why can't you?

Because I have no intention of playing your stupid games but did not wish to totally ignore you. You should have figured that out.

 

[NightEternal]

I'd swear ab't half my email is coming from lurkers who see this site!

They're onto you Night. They recognize the game for what it is.

Conklin, I have no clue what you are talking about here. I am not playing any 'game'. I told a joke and you took it seriously, end of discussion. Or do you honestly believe I meant what I said as fact? Yes Conklin, I actually believe the church manufactured the health message to sell more Worthington products! Good grief.

If you have something to say, just say it. If you can't say it publicly, PM me. Otherwise, stop with the cryptic comments. It's rude and impolite to insinuate you know something about someone which they have no idea about.

 

[djconklin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by djconklin
I didn't ask why you gave it. I didn't ask where he was. I didn't ask when was the last time you spoke with him. I asked two simple questions: who and in what class. I can answer those questions when they are put to me. Why can't you?

Because I have no intention of playing your stupid games but did not wish to totally ignore you. You should have figured that out.

I don't have a "game." I asked two simple questions.

 

[djconklin]

They're onto you Night. They recognize the game for what it is.Conklin, I have no clue what you are talking about here. I am not playing any 'game'. I told a joke and you took it seriously, end of discussion.

The lurkers took it "seriously;" I know sarcastic nonsense when I see it--but, they saw behind that.

It's rude and impolite to insinuate you know something about someone which they have no idea about.

It is also rude and impolite to mock and make fun of others.

 

[djconklin]

My interpretation of a proof text has always been something like this:

Anonymous: God is not the God of the dead.

TrustAndObey: Jesus is Lord of both the living and the dead.

Anonymous: NO HE IS NOT!

TrustAndObey: Yes, He is.

Anonymous: Prove it.

TrustAndObey: Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

Anonymous: <leaves thread and never comes back. Doesn't COMMENT mind you, just leaves>

Voila! Proof text!

That's the use of the term in the positive sense.

The critics are trying to claim that we use it in the negative sense: ripping verses out of context, not paying attention ot the syntax, etc.. Of course, when they do it it is an entirely different matter.

 

[TrustAndObey]

That's the use of the term in the positive sense.

The critics are trying to claim that we use it in the negative sense: ripping verses out of context, not paying attention ot the syntax, etc.. Of course, when they do it it is an entirely different matter.

You're lucky then because I never get any info out of them other than "you're wrong".

 

[reddogs]

My interpretation of a proof text has always been something like this:

Anonymous: God is not the God of the dead.

TrustAndObey: Jesus is Lord of both the living and the dead.

Anonymous: NO HE IS NOT!

TrustAndObey: Yes, He is.

Anonymous: Prove it.

TrustAndObey: Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

Anonymous: <leaves thread and never comes back. Doesn't COMMENT mind you, just leaves>

Voila! Proof text!

Yes, I dont know where people have come up with this twisted view of "proof text"....