Search results

I didn't add it. It is the phrase Trump's team uses 20 times in his Brief (I posted a link to the Brief above). Try reading it. You'll learn what every lawyer knows -- that the phrase "absolute immunity" (as distinguished from "qualified immunity") means subject to no exceptions. That is...

Fair point. I didn't go to UNC, and don't know what his courses do to students, but it's easy to imagine indoctrination of some students into a few anti-Christian views that he apparently holds.

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether actions taken by a President "during his tenure in office" (see both Trump's Brief and the DOJ's Brief) are absolutely immune from prosecution. Something that occurred during oral argument leads you to think that SCOTUS will give a Yes answer? Tell...

I prefer the spoken word as well. But what does DOJ's lawyer falling on his face have to do with questions by the Justices indicating they are likely to vote in favor of absolute immunity?

I do think Acts 8 IS describing the beginning of the Christian church. But here is what you said: You cited from Acts 8:16 in support of your assertion that water baptism is only mentioned in connection with it being unnecessary. Acts 8:36-38 is an instance of water baptism were there is no...

But what questions lead you to believe that any of the Justices are leaning toward a ruling of absolute immunity?

Re-reading the transcript, I don't see what you are seeing. Is there a particular question you view as a Justice tipping his/her hand on his/her leaning toward an absolute immunity ruling?

Most undergraduates at secular colleges and universities (like the one I went to) never take courses in religion or theology, so I hesitate to explain "enter a Christian, exit a non-Christian" on what is expounded in such classes. Theological training at the graduate, advanced degree level in...

Any wagers on what SCOTUS' decision on Trump's absolute immunity will be? I'd bet the answer will be No, and that a "qualified immunity" decision will be rendered that doesn't stop Trump's prosecutions.

You are repeating yourself. Word for word. Time to move on . . .

Look, I totally get your point, no need to repeat it. I've seen the same argument made by others, including Augustine. I'm just not buying into it, because it rests on too many undocumented assumptions and indulges too many improbabilities in order to explain Luke's Annunciation account. I...

You are repeating yourself, Peter. I quoted Acts 8:36-38 only to disprove your comment that "There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established." You quoted...

I wonder about the pros and cons of courses offered by a Christian vs. a secular institution. I suspect that a Christian college would tend to slant interpretations toward a particular view. While a secular school might do so too, my hunch is that secular institutions -- especially the more...

And I stand by my comment that "No first century Jewish man would be likely to marry a professed perpetual virign." Is it possible that one would? Sure. Is it likely? No. Very few first-century Jews were Nazirites (there is no Scriptural evidence that Joseph was one), and anyway, Nazirite...

What about Acts 8:36-38? 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ...

I didn't say he would have only done one of those two. I said that such responses were far more likely than continuing to arrange a marriage for Mary. Don't you agree? Temple virgins didn't get betrothed by their fathers unless the virginity vow for Temple service was temporary, not...

All I said was that that would be a far more likely response to the virginity vow you posit Mary took than continuing to arrange a marriage -- to a celibate-vowing man, the only kind of man Joachim would then consider for Mary's husband. And even you say that Joseph wasn't that man until he...

1 Cor. 11:10 adds this strange "because of the angels" comment. What's that about?

I gave my explanation. Your four-part surmise (a) he was a Nazirite, (b) he was accustomed to making vows to God, (c) he reacted to Mary's vow by following suit, and (d) they lived a chaste marriage that never got consummated, is just something I find extremely unlikely. I find it far more...

Look at the chain you are stitching together: 1. Mary's statement to the angel that virgins don't have children must mean she had taken a vow of virginity. 2. Despite that vow, she got engaged to Joseph. 3. She disclosed her vow to him, and he went along with the engagement anyway. 4. He...