Angellous versus Angellous (translation, hell, bible, Apostle, Roman)

[angellous_evangellous]

I have now had two debates with myself:

Angellous vs Angellous: Is the Bible Inerrant?
Angellous vs Angellous: Nature of Hell

I would like to inform the RF community that I am planning on two, or perhaps three debates with myself very soon.

The topics will be:

1) The nature of Paul's patronage compared to the relationship of Horace and Maecenas, a poet and a parton in Rome just before the time of Paul.

2) The role of Greco-Roman friendship and apostleship in 1 Thessalonians

3) The Temple Sermon in Jeremiah 7.1-8.3. I will be analyzing my translation
A translation of Jeremiah 7.1-8.3 and testing my hypothesis that the text teaches that since the people have supplanted God, they are commanded to take his place and punished for not being able to carry out the command.

Pro will be in black. Con will be in blue.

While it will be a one on one debate, I will enjoy frubals and an occasional comment, particularly if the comment addresses my humor.

The purpose of this thread, of course, is to remind Angellous to actually do this when he boots up his computer tomorrow. Perhaps also this serves as a warning for the general wierdness of a guy debating with himself, as well as to dip my toe in the water and see if this is more irritating to people than helpful.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I have now had two debates with myself:

Angellous vs Angellous: Is the Bible Inerrant?
Angellous vs Angellous: Nature of Hell

I would like to inform the RF community that I am planning on two, or perhaps three debates with myself very soon.

The topics will be:

1) The nature of Paul's patronage compared to the relationship of Horace and Maecenas, a poet and a parton in Rome just before the time of Paul.

2) The role of Greco-Roman friendship and apostleship in 1 Thessalonians

3) The Temple Sermon in Jeremiah 7.1-8.3. I will be analyzing my translation
A translation of Jeremiah 7.1-8.3 and testing my hypothesis that the text teaches that since the people have supplanted God, they are commanded to take his place and punished for not being able to carry out the command.

Pro will be in black. Con will be in blue.

While it will be a one on one debate, I will enjoy frubals and an occasional comment, particularly if the comment addresses my humor.

The purpose of this thread, of course, is to remind Angellous to actually do this when he boots up his computer tomorrow. Perhaps also this serves as a warning for the general wierdness of a guy debating with himself, as well as to dip my toe in the water and see if this is more irritating to people than helpful.

Well, just to let you know ahead of time, I agree with Angellous. Not the other Angellous but Angellous.

[cardero]

I am amazed at where you guys find the time and the dedication you two have for aligning your schedules to see the debate through to its conclusion.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Cynic

Well, just to let you know ahead of time, I agree with Angellous. Not the other Angellous but Angellous.

Seriously?! I find Angellous bitter and pedantic. But Angellous, on the other hand . . . now that guy is brilliant!

[RevOxley_501]

i always enjoy this---

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Seriously?! I find Angellous bitter and pedantic. But Angellous, on the other hand . . . now that guy is brilliant!

I want to be Nietzsche when I grow up.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I want to be Nietzsche when I grow up.

Look out for STDs, dude.

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I want to be Nietzsche when I grow up.

What does Angelous want to be?