Search results

Yeah, but if there really is a "remnant of Israel Church", and it is not entered into through Paul's Gospel of Grace (rather, those who believe "Paul's Gospel of Grace" enter into the "body of Christ Church", not "remnant of Israel Church"), why does Paul say "even so, today, God is preserving a...

Demonstrate how I have erred in either my premises or conclusions--raising unrelated verses or opinions isn't substantively falsifying either my premises or conclusions. Break the argument--face it head on. Show how my conclusion does not, of necessity, follow from the premises, or how the...

Show that my argument is false. Show how what I said does not follow from the evidence. Sharing your views does not disprove my views--attack my arguments directly, showing how they are inconsistent with Scripture, and how, ultimately, the argument is incoherent.

That would be an entirely different issue--it has no bearing on my argument, the topic of this thread.

Be back later!

Well, as I said, Paul does not in any way argue anything akin to what you've been concluding; my point was merely that there is a difference between explicit and implicit which you are either not appreciating or not showing appreciation for.

You have addressed the tiny portion of the argument that you felt comfortable with addressing, but, no, you haven't addressed the argument in total, from start to finish.

Yeah, you haven't addressed the argument, and you're not going to, because you know you have no answer. Your position is completely indefensible. I have to do some good deeds now--it's how God saves me (at least we can agree on that point). LOL! Me doing good IS God justifying me (Judges 7:2+...

LOL I don't think you know what the word "explicit" means--here, you would have be arguing that Paul "implicitly" (not "explicitly") identifies Mary as the New Eve (of course, he doesn't argue that at all). Just imagine if Paul had compared Mary to the Church in 2 Co 11:3--it would be an...

Let me show you an example of what I am looking for : "This is false because x, y and z." "This is false because x, y and z." "This is false because x, y and z." "This is false, because x, y and z."

Quote my argument, then, step by step, show how it is wrong.

No, it doesn't matter, because the argument is that the Church would be the only valid candidate for being New Eve--if you wanted to argue, after that is established, what the definition of "the Church" is, that would be another argument altogether.

You can deal with my entire argument when you please--quote the argument, then address what is being said.

At this point, I don't know it would matter which Church, just that it is the Church--ie, the Church Christ said He would build, and which the gates of hell would not prevail against.

Nope, you didn't demonstrate that the constituent parts of the argument were false. Quote what I said, and, one by one, demonstrate the argument is false.

Quote where you dealt with the argument put forward in the OP.

No, actually, you didn't engage with my argument, falsifying its constituent parts, demonstrating its incoherence.

You're free to interact with my argument when you please.

You haven't interacted with my views at all, you've just regurgitated what ever your Church has regurgitated into your throat. When you feel up to it, I welcome your interaction with my argument.

We're 8 pages into the discussion, and you STILL have no answer to the OP--you are chronically off topic, because you can't deal with the topic, but you can't just let it slide, because that would make Catholicism look bad, so you pretend to discuss when you really have nothing to say.