Search results

OK I read Jeremiah 30. Here are my thoughts. Jeremiah wrote that prophecy before Judah and Jerusalem were exiled to Babylon. Therefore, any restoration spoken of in his prophecy has to pertain to the restoration from Babylon. Now if you want to discuss specific verses, let's go.

No, I mean I don't think it's realistic to state that common folk didn't have the holy spirit. The holy spirit has always been with mankind seeking out and teaching those with faith.

So why don't you post a verse or so and lets discuss? That's what this is all about - not long ramblings of your opinion.

Your sin nature hasn't gone anywhere, E. As much as you'd like to deny it, you are still in a corrupted body that can and will sin if given the chance.

I don't think there's any realistic rationale for this idea.

Your philosophy makes no sense and has no practical value. It is only dire warnings and fear mongering with so many contradictions it is mind-boggling. So typical of cults.

Are you "Dan" from standingthegap?

I have to disagree that the children of Israel didn't have access to the holy spirit. David begged GOD to not remove his holy spirit from him. The holy spirit has always been available to mankind searching the earth to assist those who's hearts are perfect towards GOD. The difference in our age...

The nice thing about Scott's posts is that their length and annoying format keep most people from reading them.

Those who have been bought with a price cannot sell themselves into sin unless they abandon the faith.

No, but verse 4 was fulfilled during Jesus' ministry, and verses 8, 9 have been, and are being, fulfilled. Verses 6 and 7 are very hard to translate; there is no certainty as to what they really mean. Very possibly could be describing the day of the crucifixion. Verses 12 is future. Possibly...

Hebrews 6:6 refers to those who abandoned their faith in the blood of the lamb in order to return to the system of temple sacrifices that was still in existence then. It has nothing do with a believer committing a sin. But that expression is so vague it conveys no meaning.

Does 'cannot remain saved if he does' sin mean the person cannot be saved at all or if he doesn't repent?

That version of Zechariah 14:5 is obviously from the Masoretic Text (MT) which wasn't fully redacted until nearly 1000 years after the apostles. The apostles used the Septuagint (LXX), which is a Greek translation of the ancient Hebrew scrolls made nearly 1000 years before the MT, and 100-200...

Does your use of cannot mean 'not able to' or 'not permitted to'?

That one went over your head, Scott. BA was referring to the fact that moral deeds esteemed by man are filthy unrighteousness in GOD's eyes. Of course, you are clueless to that reality because you confuse morality with righteousness. Obviously, all of the holy ones you mentioned were operating...

He's talking about the resurrection, DF. Scott's arguments are not carefully thought-through. They are riddled with fallacies. They are only carefully thought-through in the sense that they are extraordinarily deceitful. If you are of a mind to spend your time trying to reason with someone who...

Another one of your many fallacies stated as fact. Remembrance of father's sins are passed onto the children to the third and fourth generations. Jesus' father was GOD. No sins to pass down through the father. He had perfect knowledge of GOD, so no sin. It was. It wasn't defiled by sin.

The act of sinning is a choice; sin itself is a rebellious spirit that permeates your Adamic nature because it is separated from GOD. Your Adamic nature hasn't gone anywhere; it is still very much alive. It is what leads you to commit sin when you are not walking in faith. Sin doesn't originate...

I know you didn't. You doubt that it is. My point is you cannot separate the body from the mind, so talking about the sinfulness of the body (alone) is a waste of time and just facilitates this unending discussion. The bible clearly teaches that man's Adamic nature is separated from GOD. There...