The real disciples of Jesus

[kjw47]

At Matthew 28:19-20--Shows who are the ones taking the lead who have Jesus and who are his real disciples. It says (those taking the lead) will teach them( real disciples) to observe ALL that Jesus commanded.
That means they teach every single teaching without fail. That means the real disciples learn and apply every single teaching without fail.
Here is a super important teaching Every true follower already knows by heart---Matthew 6:33- Keep on seeking- FIRST- the kingdom and his( YHWH(Jehovah) righteousness and all these things will be added.( sustenance, covering, spirituality) Matt 6)

So all can look at the ones taking the lead to see if they have Jesus and at self to see if they listen to Jesus. Because they have already taught Matt 6:33 just like above to the ones called the flock, don't you agree? Remember Jesus said-- I am the way, truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me.--The Father( YHWH(Jehovah) is the destination for every true disciple--To accomplish this 24/7-365--John 4:22-24
Do you do that?

[2timothy316]

Well, for one thing, this isn't normal speech, but a Biblical verse we're talking about.

This is where many go wrong. There is no reason to think this. When Matthew 28:19-20 was written there was no reason to add the word 'real' to it. Jesus was already speaking to real disciples. So there is no reason to not to expect normal speech. What you're expecting is unreasonable. KJW was speaking about those today that call themselves Jesus' followers. She was not speaking to disciples as Jesus was, so they were pointing out that only real disciples follow Matthew 28:19-20. The fact that I have to point out such a simple concept is sad.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to WinkyDinky in post #38]
You just want to find fault, it seems. Someone asks you a perfectly fine question and you just chuckle in your coffee and ignore the request. Strange.

How hard was it for you to find any fault with anything I have posted?

I have asked you questions which you refuse to give any attention to other than joking around.

[WinkyDinky]

[Replying to WinkyDinky in post #38]
You just want to find fault, it seems. Someone asks you a perfectly fine question and you just chuckle in your coffee and ignore the request. Strange.

How hard was it for you to find any fault with anything I have posted?

I have asked you questions which you refuse to give any attention to other than joking around.

You did not ask me a question. You made a comment about my character.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to WinkyDinky in post #38]
You just want to find fault, it seems. Someone asks you a perfectly fine question and you just chuckle in your coffee and ignore the request. Strange.

How hard was it for you to find any fault with anything I have posted?

I have asked you questions which you refuse to give any attention to other than joking around.

You did not ask me a question. You made a comment about my character.

Such is not the case.

[WinkyDinky]

[Replying to WinkyDinky in post #38]
You just want to find fault, it seems. Someone asks you a perfectly fine question and you just chuckle in your coffee and ignore the request. Strange.

How hard was it for you to find any fault with anything I have posted?

I have asked you questions which you refuse to give any attention to other than joking around.

You did not ask me a question. You made a comment about my character.

Such is not the case.

Well by all means, stop claiming it and prove it.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to WinkyDinky in post #38]
You just want to find fault, it seems. Someone asks you a perfectly fine question and you just chuckle in your coffee and ignore the request. Strange.

How hard was it for you to find any fault with anything I have posted?

In post #35 I asked you to show me where I contradicted myself, and you just laughed. You didn't kindly explain to me what you meant, because I didn't have a clue as to what you meant.

[WinkyDinky]

[Replying to WinkyDinky in post #38]
You just want to find fault, it seems. Someone asks you a perfectly fine question and you just chuckle in your coffee and ignore the request. Strange.

How hard was it for you to find any fault with anything I have posted?

In post #35 I asked you to show me where I contradicted myself, and you just laughed. You didn't kindly explain to me what you meant, because I didn't have a clue as to what you meant.

It is meaningless to the objective of the debate.
It is of no value to me to spend the time it will consume
from me to prove myself over you. I retract it. Now we are good.
You did not contradict yourself. I am good with it. We can just go solely on the merit of your statement
I said you contradicted yourself. I still win.

[Miles]

Well, for one thing, this isn't normal speech, but a Biblical verse we're talking about.

This is where many go wrong. There is no reason to think this.

But there is. Normal speech can be filled with all kinds of irregular usages, colloquialisms, mistaken utterances, unintentional flubs, etc. Whereas Biblical scripture is often considered to be god's indelible word, which is "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,. " Where "Every word of God proves true;" Normal speech is never accorded such status.

When Matthew 28:19-20 was written there was no reason to add the word 'real' to it.

If you say so. I wasn't there. However, obviously kjw47 thinks it is necessary. Hence her continued reference to "real" disciples.

"At Matthew 28:19-20--Shows who are the ones taking the lead who have Jesus and who are his real disciples. It says (those taking the lead) will teach them (real disciples) to observe ALL that Jesus commanded.

That means they teach every single teaching without fail. That means the real disciples learn and apply every single teaching without fail."

Jesus was already speaking to real disciples. So there is no reason to not to expect normal speech.

If go back and check post 15 you'll see that it was 2timothy316 who brought up "normal speech" when he said:

"But you have the right to demand a word not be ignored but a word be added to scripture for the sake of yours? Though no one goes around adding 'the real _______' in normal speech when everyone already knows they are talking about the real thing. "

To which I replied:

Well, for one thing, this isn't normal speech, but a Biblical verse we're talking about. A verse that says X when, in fact, it's said [by kjw47] to show X+y. Think this is kosher? I don't.

Consider: What if kjw47 said: "Matthew 28:19-20--Shows who are the ones taking the lead who have Jesus and who are his false disciples."

Think it would be appropriate to ask why he added "false"? I do.

What you're expecting is unreasonable.

I disagree.

KJW was speaking about those today that call themselves Jesus' followers. She was not speaking to disciples as Jesus was, so they were pointing out that only real disciples follow Matthew 28:19-20.

But she was speaking about the disciples mentioned in Matthew 28:19-20.

The fact that I have to point out such a simple concept is sad.

And I find it irrational that you feel you have to point out anything.

.

[2timothy316]

Well, for one thing, this isn't normal speech, but a Biblical verse we're talking about.

This is where many go wrong. There is no reason to think this.

But there is. Normal speech can be filled with all kinds of irregular usages, colloquialisms, mistaken utterances, unintentional flubs, etc. Whereas Biblical scripture is often considered to be god's indelible word, which is "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,. " Where "Every word of God proves true;" Normal speech is never accorded such status.

What was written is in the past. You're wanting something to be written as if it was said today. This is a completely unreasonable expectation.
What was said in the Bible is true and it is still true and if Jesus were speaking to non-disciples today and then written down then the word true would be there. What you're expecting is the current words to change to fit a different audience. This too is unreasonable.

The Bible is still good for teaching those that want to be taught. It is worthless to those that are unreasonable. (1 Corinthians 1:18)

[Miles]

Well, for one thing, this isn't normal speech, but a Biblical verse we're talking about.

This is where many go wrong. There is no reason to think this.

But there is. Normal speech can be filled with all kinds of irregular usages, colloquialisms, mistaken utterances, unintentional flubs, etc. Whereas Biblical scripture is often considered to be god's indelible word, which is "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,. " Where "Every word of God proves true;" Normal speech is never accorded such status.

What was written is in the past. You're wanting something to be written as if it was said today. This is a completely unreasonable expectation.

I would agree if I ever said I expected such a thing, but I never have. However, as long as you bring up your rather odd conclusion, please justify it. That I'm "wanting something to be written as if it was said today."

What was said in the Bible is true and it is still true and if Jesus were speaking to non-disciples today and then written down then the word true would be there.

Okay.

What you're expecting is the current words to change to fit a different audience.

No. What I'm expecting is that people writing today, in this case kjw47, understand the English language well enough to mean what they say. That when she used "real" she meant "existing or occurring as fact."

This too is unreasonable.

Not unreasonable at all. Don't you expect people to use words with their proper meanings?

The Bible is still good for teaching those that want to be taught. It is worthless to those that are unreasonable. (1 Corinthians 1:18)

Irrelevant!

.