Search results

For a deep dive, this link -- distilled from Daniel Wallace's PhD. dissertation -- is pretty good. Wallace has a nice conclusion: “Consequently, in Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 we are compelled to recognize that, on a grammatical level, a heavy burden of proof rests with the one who wishes to deny...

You have me on that one. I see support in Scripture both ways. I'm tempted to answer that it depends on whether baptism leads to receipt of the Holy Spirit. Just looking at Acts for the moment: That baptism leads to receiving of the Holy Spirit is suggested by Acts 2:38: “Peter said to them...

So this is on me now? You don't think you were being disrespectful without cause?

I'm still wondering why baptism didn't make @St. SteVen's list. I guess because it's something one sees occurring withing a given congregation or church denomination?

Would you mind editing your post to remove "of course"? It's disrespectful. You have no cause to assume that I am wearing blinders on this issue.

I agree with your post #128 that 1 Cor. does not present an occasion either for confirming or rejecting Granville Sharp. That really was the point I intended to make originally.

I think this is the first time I've been accused of spewing "poison." I happen to be a Trinitarian. Does that make me poisonous when I post my reasons on a discussion forum (reasons which, by the way, don't generally include Scriptural references, which I find equivocal on the subject)? I...

Happy to elaborate. I understood your criticism of @Johann's invocation of Granville Sharp to be inconsistent with 1 Cor. 1. I don't see it as inconsistent, and wonder whether (and if so why) you do.

Are you suggesting that because these demons didn't call Jesus 'God," therefore Jesus cannot be God? Literally CANNOT BE? Impossible? No way in hell (or anywhere else)? If Jesus were God, it is unimaginable that these demons would have call Him "the Holy One of God" rather than "God?"...

Since I share @Johann's view of the effect of the Granville Sharp rule, I wonder if you would accuse me of fantasizing as well. I won't avoid discussion of 1 Cor. 1, if that helps.

I see no such reference to perpetual virginity in the Protoevengelium of James. Point it out, please.

Please share the scripture that says the earth is the third planet from the sun.

I'm not mocking God's words at all. Scripture tells us of God's only begotten Son, and I accept it without reservation. Scripture tells us the Son is God (in some verses at least). I accept that too. Scripture NEVER declares that BECAUSE the Son is the only begotten of the Father, therefore...

I cannot. While I agree that the Son is God, I just don't see it as "factual truth" that a "begotten" son of God MUST, AS A MATTER OF LOGICAL NECESSITY, be God too. I see it as poor logic. Extremely poor. Laughably poor. Like saying the world is round because the sky is blue. (Is the world...

My sarcasm expresses my disagreement. (I am a Trinitarian. But I cringe at silly arguments for Trinitarianism.)

So is this the thesis now? Humans beget themselves. Dogs beget themselves. God begets Himself. If so, I'm excited about the ontological prospect of begetting myself! Move over Dolly; my clone is coming!

I do. The science of genetics doesn't apply to the Almighty.

I never went to Bible school. So forgive me if I mess this up: Human begets human. Dog begets dog, God, being omnipotent, begets anyone or anything He chooses. and talking about God in terms of genetics or biology is downright stupid.

I don't have a clue what you mean here.

I know how tradition works (do you enjoy denigrating me in particular, or is everyone who challenges you getting the same assault?). That's not my question of you. Please read more carefully. I will ask again. What is the first written reference OF WHICH YOU ARE AWARE about Mary's perpetual...