Search results

When I come across people who are married to dishonesty, who never admit when their views clearly don't agree with Scripture--when it's clear they're not playing with a full deck of cards--I don't waste my resources, I just put them on ignore (unless I'm letting them bring objections so answers...

There isn't a verse you won't abuse, so there's no point. Au revoir.

Yeah, Jesus says I'm not good, only God is, so is my HONESTY about it the problem? I'm not God. Is that a surprise to you?

I'm not a good guy--God is good, and I rely on His righteous act of mercy every moment--but don't these people care to recognize the disparity between what they purport and the obvious testimony of Scripture? It is dishonesty, plain and simple to ignore it like they do--but they pat themselves...

That said, I'm not a QP "professor", so anyone who knows better, and wants to interact with the post, and challenge me on it, and help improve it, is welcome to.

You're not going to understand the Bible as long as you rely on classical physics ("Either Christ loses none, or He loses some--you can't say anyone falls away AND He loses none are both true!"); Quantum Physics is the way the world actually works, and is the only basis whereby Scripture coheres...

Irrelevant : if your "god" doesn't forget righteousness, but only forgets sin, it isn't the Bible's God, it is idolatry, because the God of Scripture is able to forget not only sin (which attribute you cherry pick and arbitrarily grant, while disallowing and disbelieving the other attribute...

It's a good thing to believe that you can't end up in hell born again--what happens to some is their righteousness of faith is forgotten, thus, retroactively, it becomes that they were never born again, thus the idea "the born again can never go to hell" obtains, and, still, the warnings obtain...

Wow, I learn something new every day--not that you meant it (you actually deny it)--but I do like this connection between "in Christ" and "in God's kindness", and "not in the flesh, but in the spirit", and "in faith". "The kindness of a savior". I think this is helpful.

They're not honest people--you'll never get them to admit to what Scripture says--so, unless you're just in it to train your spiritual muscles, or maybe offer answers for lurkers, you're wasting your time. LOL! You probably know that--I've seen you here for a while.

Well, I don't want to be guilty of going off topic--it irks me when people do that on my threads--but I have laid out my take on the issue you have raised, and I hope you can take it as a "response" without taking offense to it, because, sometimes, when people do that to me (redirect me to some...

I know you agree, but my two cents : Paul is an example of "if a scribe or a lawyer converts, he brings forth both new and old". His Gospel doesn't differ, substantively, from anyone else's, it just goes into detail when needed (ie, with the Jewish believers in the Church of Rome, who, having...

Well, I've seen and heard more bizarre things than this, yes, but not with respect to Biblical studies. If we're talking about Biblical studies, this is the most bizarre thing I've heard, other than when gays try to abuse Scripture to defend homosexuality LOL

I guess I am not cordial, but the issue at hand, the focus of the thread, the topic, is simply the truth or falsehood of his conclusions--and I have never in my life heard anything so bizarre as what Doug is saying.

Seems a reasonable take--either way, it does not at all of necessity follow from Paul saying "my Gospel" that Paul also meant "my Gospel is different than Peter's--through Peter's Gospel, Jew and Gentile enter 'the remnant of Israel Church', but, through my Gospel, Jew and Gentile enter the...

Yep, silliness describes all of it--and it has been demonstrated to him in multiple ways by multiple users, but he's unwilling to "come on now". He will not have it. Now, after having had his arguments dismantled, there're even "New Member" puppet accounts (eg, BeforeThereWas), created extremely...

Since you're a "New Member", and you're interacting only on Doug's posts, and you seem to be acquainted with, and actually agree with, Doug's ideas--ideas which I've never in my life come across, in any way, shape, or form--I'm going to assume you're a puppet account, and place you on ignore.

The topic is Doug's empty assertion that there were two Churches--"remnant of Israel Church", of which both Jews and Gentiles were members, which was entered by believing "Peter's Gospel", and "body of Christ Church", of which both Jews and Gentiles were members, which was entered by believing...

I think he's only objecting to Doug's idea that there are two Churches--the "remnant of Israel Church", which is entered (by Jews and Gentiles) by believing "Peter's Gospel", and "body of Christ Church", which is entered (by Jews and Gentiles) by believing "Paul's Gospel"--but I'm not acquainted...

Once again, that is irrelevant : you say the "remnant of Israel Church" is not entered by "Paul's Gospel of Grace" (but "Peter's Gospel"); the context demonstrates this "remnant" included those Jewish believers in his audience (who were to submit to "Paul's Gospel of Grace", his written...