Search results

Right, well, I thought I proved this to be the case already with my dissertation of revelation. However, all the dissertations doesn't compare to being a witness to it. Seeing the son and father face to face on their thrones is the ultimate form of evidence. It will certainly disprove once and...

Well, if the doctrine claims that the son is equal to his Father, then its false on its face, because if the son is truly equal to his Father, we shouldn't be calling him our mediator. He represents something more than that, and this is according to both the "diversified oneness" doctrine and...

I don't believe there ever will be a verdict on it on this earth. Now in the earth to come, the true nature of the Godhead will become readily apparent when we see 'God Almighty' and the 'Word of God' sitting next to each other on their own thrones, as John plainly depicted in the very last...

I am, just not torn up about it since I don't really see it as a salvation issue.

Well, no actually, what you see in revelation is a type of false trinity, Satan, the first beast, and the second beast/false prophet. None of them are ever described as the "Antichrist", as if there is some big super villain we have to look forward to. The second beast rises and is given all the...

"The Pope was the Antichrist".....That word "Antichrist" has become the favorite buzz word for Christians to refer to some big bad villain that's supposed to rise in the last days. The problem with this interpretation is that revelation never once uses the word at all to refer to any specific...

@Joseph77 Everybody has their own definition of what they consider "truth" based on their own personal interpretations. So when it comes down to it, the only real, undisputed interpretation of what is true is time. Time cannot lie, it always tell the truth.

So, in other words, its not possible to follow the law 100%. So why is Luke saying Zacharias and Elisabeth followed the whole law and was blameless before God?

, Ok, but you still didn't answer my question about Luke 1:5-6. Is it possible for one to keep the law or not? If not, then why is Luke stating otherwise?

I gave a long complex response to a complex issue. Also, you keep bringing up the ten commandments as if its a standard that is completely unattainable, yet we see scriptures like this. All the commandments and ordinances or just some? How do you explain this?

People basically say it everyday with their elementary explanation of the glorified body. You can search for that yourself if you wish, life is too short.

Its been said plenty of times by people here, and across the internet.

Ok, well, I don't believe the issue is as simple as people often make it out to be. Adam and Eve eating from that other tree God strictly prohibited them from is what brought about spiritual death, as sin and the very knowledge of it entered the world because of it. This is why God promised...

Well by "curse", do you mean the curse of physical death, spiritual death? Are you referring to the curse God put on the earth itself? What exactly do you mean "curse"?

The bolded part is the part of the verse people always leave out. It makes it easier to rob the preceding section of its context. In context Job was "perfect and upright" in his fear of God and hatred of evil, not because he attained sinless perfection. Anybody can quote scripture in bits and...

I actually found your question about where the curse came from to be quite odd. What did you mean exactly by "where" it came from? What exactly are you asking?

Sure, but not after clapping back and shutting him down.

Walking away is not always an option. Sometimes the best option is to retaliate and put them on their ass. Christianity is not about being a pushover.