Search results

The context of our being forbidden to judge is that we are not to condemn. The citation of Jesus's teaching not to judge others (lest we will be judged), is in that sense; we could certainly say, "Do not pronounce judgment on others, lest judgment will be pronounced upon you." Two things...

Okay, I think we were just missing a bit on the "Jesus is not a human person" thing, which I'll be glad to take the entire blame for. In this respect, right, He never was and will never be a human person ~ and one day we will be just like Him. But a person He always was, is, and will be ~ and...

Sure, you're convinced of that, I get it. And I'm sure to that you will say that your position is objective as can be. That's fine with me; I would just say again that it is not "missing" at all, it's all there; here's a comparison of 1 John 5:1-12 between the King James and the English...

LOL! No... it's just a bit different in places ~ closer to a 1:1 correlation to the original Greek, but the substance is quite the same. Grace and peace to you, Phoneman.

No offense, Candidus, but this doesn't even make sense. Honestly, I'm not even sure what the point you're trying to make is... of if you are even making one at all, really. At any rate: Jesus accomplished the redemption of some on the cross, meaning it is finished, just as He said, and so His...

Not really; it's just a difference in interpretive method. The King James is based on the Textus Receptus, as are the Tyndale New Testament (1526,1534), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Matthew Bible (1537), and a few others in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. But the Textus Receptus lost...

Admittedly, at first, I was just taking your word for it, assuming they were saying exactly what you were saying, without really looking at the statement(s). But then on actual review, I realized they were probably not really saying what you were attributing to them. Grace and peace to you...

Nope. I think it's quite the other way around. Hey, let's argue about that now! That'll be fun... :) It was not so clearly said, Matthias. For somebody to label anything as "accurate" is many times at least a bit subjective, and it certainly was in this case. It was really a bit hard to...

I think I said, Matthias, that if they truly meant that statement in the way that you are supposing them to have meant it, then they are false trinitarians. Grace and peace to you. Especially grace, since you seem to not be able to have any... :) Again, just hackin' atcha... :)

Right, you think you do. Not one iota. I do, if ~ again, if ~ regardless whether it is coming from Catholic or Protestant theologians, it is meant in the way that I said it is very possible to correctly understand that statement, that Jesus is not merely a "human person." I did. I did...

Jehovah's Witnesses unintentionally suppose Thomas to be doing at least two things in John 20:28, Webers_Home. In no particular order: Thomas is acknowledging Jesus to be His God and thereby breaking Commandment 1 ("You shall have no other gods before Me"). Thomas is taking the LORD's name in...

Okay well again... don't really care what Catholics say. :) But again, if you read just this one statement ~ and I fully acknowledge that one statement is not enough, many times, to get a comprehensive picture ~ but if you read this one statement: "But Christologies from below evade the real...

Right; I agree. Good Lord. This is not what I was suggesting. Read what I wrote again. Grace and peace to you.

You're welcome to your opinion, and I'm not going to argue with it. But I think any reasonable person can look at that statement you posted... "But Christologies from below evade the real mystery, namely, that Jesus is truly human yet he is not a human person, but a divine person, the Son of...

I think at least most of them, if not all, but can't be sure. Who cares? What is is. Generally speaking, I think if you asked any good Catholic theologian ~ which is a bit of a misnomer concerning several things... :) ~ for clarification, that's the answer you would get. Like I said...

Yeah, Catholics. What to do with them? :) What're ya gonna do? :) Yes, that was what's called "sarcasm." :) No, actually, that's all you. But like I said, understandable, based on that clumsy statement. They're teaching that in His personhood, He is both human and divine, and not merely...

No, He absolutely is. I'm not a Catholic, but in this quoted statement, they say that Jesus is truly human. So what does it even mean that He is truly human, but not a human person? It's a very clumsy statement in itself... quite astounding. Catholics notwithstanding, trinitarians...

Ah. It is what it is, I guess. :) Sure it is. But then that begs the question, who are true Jews? Paul tells us in Romans 2:28-29, Romans 9:6-8, and Romans 11:25-26 (see above). And the writer of Hebrews, too (Hebrews 1:1-2). Right... your incorrect take on their commentaries. Yes...

Right, because you're not a trinitarian. Sure. You're the "hound of Jewish monotheism." I get it. Sure. Right... Um... no, not at all. That's what you're foisting upon them (and us). LOL! See above. He's not absolutely the same as all other human persons, because they're not also...

I'm a bit confused by you're making this statement. Are you saying this in refutation of the Chalcedonian Creed? Or are you saying this is what it essentially says? I mean, I think I know the answer to this question; you're not trinitarian, by your own admission. And what makes you think...