Search results

That translation pitted against the KJV is a common play in support of doctrines that can be used to try and pit scripture against itself, which is tragic. Paul's words in context defy this assumption of a singular gospel, for one will search in vain to find where Paul ever commanded water...

Well said. Here is one of THE most telling evidences for Paul's gospel being unique from that of the twelve: Galatians 1:11-12 — But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the...

Actually, no. Christ had no beginning. He is, was and always will be self-existant. The physical body He inhabited did have a beginning, but the Son Himself had no beginning, and He was not the result of celestial sex on the planet Colob somewhere out there in space. BTW

No. Their Jesus never existed. Their Jesus was a created being, which has no similarity to the biblical Jesus. I was a Mormon for 12 years and so am well acquainted with their beliefs. BTW

I don't know where you heard that, but no. They are classified as a cult because they believe in a Jesus who never existed. BTW

Some forms of polygamy are condemned, but nowhere is polygyny condemned. Clarity in language and word usage is important. BTW

An argument from silence by itself is always...an argument from silence, which cannot be used as a defense for paganism or any assumed Christian doctrine. The Torah clearly stated that praying to any other presumed god, that is idolatry. Today, there is only one Mediator between God and man, and...

Good points indeed. I agree. They carry it even further on the basis of the idea that one must "maintain" their salvation against an alleged loss, which cannot happen. The fact of our being sealed by Holy Spirit unto salvation, that just rubs some people the wrong way, with them claiming it to...

Systematic Theology kicks in at this point, which is a panoramic view of scripture as opposed to the pick-n-choose singular verses upon which to try and build a theology that cannot withstand the gale force winds of testing for falsehood. What that verse you quoted says in relation to all others...

Given that philosophical vantagepoint and also given that all who ever had a spark of life on this earth are all still consciously alive right now and beyond, one of many conclusions could be that nobody ever truly dies in the spiritual sense. So, semantic word games generally ensue over what...

In this age of replacement theology, it's easy for those who practice replacement theology to add all manner of stuff to what is required for salvation. In addition to "saved by grace through faith," (Eph. 2:8), many concoct additions such as water baptism as was preached by Peter to Israel in...

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Some out there like to try drawing lines of parallel between faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ on the third day, and with obedience as unto the Law and the commandments...

As an Israeli, I can understand why the religious leaders wanted to crucify Him because of His very declarations for being equal with God, and therefore God. Scripture says that the fullness of Deity dwelt within Him bodily. No other man or angel could ever have claimed that. Getting tripped up...

Actually, that is not entirely true. Gideon, who had MANY wives, we are not told one word about his having had issues as a result. The few who did have issues, such as Jacob marrying his wife's sister...well yeah, that is indeed going to result in trouble down the road for ANY man who seeks...

Trying to play the singular mention of wife into this topic as if that is the foundation for some imagined limitation placed upon all men, you're creating more problems than you're solving. What if the text had stated "wives" in that instance? Would you then claim that plural wives is then...

It makes no difference what I believe. I already told you what those verses say and what they don't say of the things you injected into them. BTW

The meaning in the Romans passage was more about the Gentiles in relation to the world of Gentiles, who will indeed be cut off when the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. It is at that point that the partial blindness upon Israel will be removed. Paul was not saying the believing Gentiles...

Your bent upon ad hominem destroys any integrity in your chastisements. Assuming yourself superior in your understanding by way of eisegetical interpretations is most telling as well. I'm not going to attack your character as you have done toward me because sinking into that pathetic pitfall...

You can try to force meaning into that text all you want, but it won't work. The text says what it says, and trying to force salvation into it only demonstrates a bent upon subjective interpretation. BTW

For the sake of clarification, I stated that the offspring of the concubines did not receive the inheritance from their father. They could receive gifts and other portions not attributed as a part of the inheritance given mostly to the eldest or truly appointed son of promise, as was the case...