Search results

What translation is that? The word in question here is the Greek verb "egapa" which means "loved" not "served."

That is incorrect. The Biblical answer is found in post #5. http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/16167-does-the-bible-prohibit-a-woman-from-being-a-pastor/#entry155459

So you're saying that trouble and affliction never come from the hand of God?

That's very interesting, but I don't think I would want electronics implanted in my arm for the reasons listed in the article. I'm sure future generations will think nothing of it.

Not only is there no Biblical support for female pastors/elders, there are explicit Biblical prohibitions against it. There is also no indication whatsoever that these prohibitions are limited to Jews. Example: 1Ti 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man...

Ditto. Maybe our KJOnlyist friends can give us a textual critical reason for us to cling to an almost 500 year old English translation. I welcome the challenge.

Here's the bottom line, Insight. We can argue all day long about the exact nature of fallen and unfallen "flesh." The Biblical facts remain the same regarding Christ. Joh 1:1 . . .and the Word was God. . . Joh 1:14 . . .And the Word became flesh. . . 1Jn 3:5 You know that he appeared to...

Where did I say any such thing, Insight? You must be getting pretty desperate seeing that you are now resorting to putting words in my mouth that I never uttered.

The answer is yes. Ding, ding, ding. The prize goes to the man with the astute question. Your friend is a Gnostic to the core Vengle. His objections are philosophical presuppositions that he allows to trump the teaching of Scripture. I hope you realize that sooner than later.

I hope that I simply misunderstand what you're saying. If that's not the case, I invite you to click on the last link in my signature to see how the idea that Genesis 1 & 2 are parables destroys all of Christianity. I eagerly await your response.

The same way the sinless Adam suffered temptation before the fall. There was no sin nature before the fall. The difference between Adam and Christ was that Adam succumbed to temptation where Jesus did not. Again, you assume that "flesh" is inherently tainted, fallen or unfallen. This idea of...

We've already established that your proof-text refers to Levitical priests, not Christ. Do I need really need to direct you to that post?

We agree on something. Imagine that. :) Vengle, are you saying that you are switching sides, so to speak?

We've been through this already. Christ had no sin for which to sacrifice. A few pages back I posted numerous examples against what you are blasphemously claiming here. I'm not going to post them all again. I'll remind you with one. 1Jn 3:5 You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in...

Well, that's not the goal here. Truth is the goal, not slick arguments.

Really? I already gave you three verses where "theos" is anarthrous and it still clearly refers to God. Theos in those examples were in the genitive case. I won't go over those again. Here's an example where theos is anarthrous in the accusative case and refers to God: Joh 1:18 No one has...

No, Insight. "Sin's flesh" is your own addition to that text. It says no such thing. Christ took on our sins by imputation in the same way that his righteousness is imputed to us for justification. Again, if Christ was born with Original Sin he could not have saved anyone. That text is talking...

1. Highly unaccepted? You're kidding right? Why single out Stephanus' editions of the TR? How about the TR editions of Beza and Erasmus which the KJV translators also utilized? I suspect that Stephanus is what popped up first when you Googled Textus Receptus. Why play games like this, Vengle...

I guess we're finished with the word "justification" and how it applies to Christ? Once again, for someone who is "deep into Greek translation" you're ignorance is astounding Vengle. The reason for the difference between English translations is because there is a textual variant to deal with at...

Yes, my "statement" was honest and true, but it certainly wasn't in your favor. You are truly delusional Vengle.