Perhaps it is correct to say that you are not arguing the point because by my lights you missed it entirely thus far. You are arguing your own case and you do that very nicely. You might look into why it is that there are various Rabbis teaching that it is forbidden to save an animal from death on Shabbat. Did they just make it up recently, or could there be some historical precedence to this, their contemporary teaching? So there is a theory I attempted to convey, which you left entirely out of this video, including only a later comment of mine sans context. Was this omission out of a negligent lapse, or idleness, or what? You think it's fine to display one of my comments and read through word for word - but when it comes to the original comment you get to make a goofy paraphrase "he said something like..." No. That is not correct behavior. The theory in question is that there was indeed a teaching extant in Jesus' time, prohibiting the rescue of animals on the Sabbath, which he did address in his words on the matter which you cite here. He made a corrective clarification on the matter for the edification of those mired in dogma and pomp. This is a theory that contradicts nothing you have said as far as I can tell. It merely comes as new information to one who appears to be about disseminating predigested information rather than facing anything new. Taking some time to ponder and research what I am presenting to you as a notion might be helpful. You are also faced with the choice to which you allude at the start of the video. We might call it ego vs reality. Speaking softly is fine but esteeming yourself for it is risky. You think the serpent doesn't know to speak softly? It's also an available way to stroke one's ego and since you made a virtue signal out of the matter I am not given an impression of piety. So, I now consider you worthily rebuked for time being. You can get back to me with an apology or some kind of coherent argument to the actual points raised. Please don't make any more insouciant videos based on selected edits of my prose. If you like I will give you an interview for my channel. As in, you can interview me or I you or both - but I will post the video unedited. Your editing does not well represent or please me.
@johnp3081 if you can see it you've got it. Certainly I am arrogant and insecure and all of that, but if that's all you can see then you must be more full than I.
Doing some checking on this topics and the comments RECEIVED...this channel is correct and there are 39 books in both tanakh and old testament, even my app has 39 books. Jesus also was reffering that the OX could be returned on Sabbath from the OLD TESTAMENT, but used a sheep instead. The Pharisees added their own laws and traditions to the Sabbath. SDAs have that same understand and they are very to what is written channel as Advent Defense League and School for Prophets. I cannot see where Think Again has been arrogance or condescending. Arguing and arrogance is on your part! And you demand and apology *ARROGANCE* indeed and he is correct *not* you.
@@JohJohn-z9g the fact that a version of the OT and the Hebrew Tanakh both have 39 books does in no way imply that they contain duplicate information. To argue thus is sophism or stupidity Please keep researching and try not to get hung up on judging others. Are you utterly devoid of arrogance? Uh-huh I didn't think so and there you go insulting me. Now you may also consider yourself rebuked and in a position to apologize and repent. Good night.
@@dongkhamet1351 sometimes we don't need religious channels to come right. There are also many psychological channels for the believer. Please try them. They might be good for you.
Blessings. Love this one!
Praise YHWH
@@johnp3081 beats praising oneself :D
You are correct brother! There will always be haters and angry dudes. Thanks for the upload
Perhaps it is correct to say that you are not arguing the point because by my lights you missed it entirely thus far. You are arguing your own case and you do that very nicely.
You might look into why it is that there are various Rabbis teaching that it is forbidden to save an animal from death on Shabbat. Did they just make it up recently, or could there be some historical precedence to this, their contemporary teaching?
So there is a theory I attempted to convey, which you left entirely out of this video, including only a later comment of mine sans context. Was this omission out of a negligent lapse, or idleness, or what? You think it's fine to display one of my comments and read through word for word - but when it comes to the original comment you get to make a goofy paraphrase "he said something like..."
No. That is not correct behavior.
The theory in question is that there was indeed a teaching extant in Jesus' time, prohibiting the rescue of animals on the Sabbath, which he did address in his words on the matter which you cite here. He made a corrective clarification on the matter for the edification of those mired in dogma and pomp.
This is a theory that contradicts nothing you have said as far as I can tell. It merely comes as new information to one who appears to be about disseminating predigested information rather than facing anything new.
Taking some time to ponder and research what I am presenting to you as a notion might be helpful. You are also faced with the choice to which you allude at the start of the video. We might call it ego vs reality.
Speaking softly is fine but esteeming yourself for it is risky. You think the serpent doesn't know to speak softly?
It's also an available way to stroke one's ego and since you made a virtue signal out of the matter I am not given an impression of piety.
So, I now consider you worthily rebuked for time being. You can get back to me with an apology or some kind of coherent argument to the actual points raised. Please don't make any more insouciant videos based on selected edits of my prose.
If you like I will give you an interview for my channel. As in, you can interview me or I you or both - but I will post the video unedited. Your editing does not well represent or please me.
I SEE ARROGANCE...THAT is all I see
@johnp3081 if you can see it you've got it. Certainly I am arrogant and insecure and all of that, but if that's all you can see then you must be more full than I.
Doing some checking on this topics and the comments RECEIVED...this channel is correct and there are 39 books in both tanakh and old testament, even my app has 39 books. Jesus also was reffering that the OX could be returned on Sabbath from the OLD TESTAMENT, but used a sheep instead. The Pharisees added their own laws and traditions to the Sabbath. SDAs have that same understand and they are very to what is written channel as Advent Defense League and School for Prophets. I cannot see where Think Again has been arrogance or condescending. Arguing and arrogance is on your part! And you demand and apology *ARROGANCE* indeed and he is correct *not* you.
@@JohJohn-z9g the fact that a version of the OT and the Hebrew Tanakh both have 39 books does in no way imply that they contain duplicate information. To argue thus is sophism or stupidity
Please keep researching and try not to get hung up on judging others.
Are you utterly devoid of arrogance?
Uh-huh I didn't think so and there you go insulting me.
Now you may also consider yourself rebuked and in a position to apologize and repent.
Good night.
@@dongkhamet1351 sometimes we don't need religious channels to come right. There are also many psychological channels for the believer. Please try them. They might be good for you.