Search results

No, it was not a "tradition"--Jesus had taught His disciples very well not to fear the traditions of the elders, describing them as "vain worship", "doctrines of men", whereby they broke God's Law, so Peter would not, now, say "The traditions of the elders say it is unlawful for Jews to eat with...

@Doug Are you a "Black Hebrew Israelite"?

Think of what you are saying : Jesus says "Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it", speaking of Peter, making Peter a member of the Church, yet you want to define Peter as a member of the bride, because he is of the remnant of Israel, but...

OK 1. My recent response to Doug, which you responded to, was about my disagreement with him on his view that Peter and Paul preached different Gospels, and that the result was Peter's audience became "the remnant of Israel", whereas Paul's audience became "the body of Christ"--I hold that all...

Are you saying you agree with Doug?

That's not what you said here... ...but, yeah, sure, what ever you say. Yeah, other people had to rack their brains, and pray about it, and then you thanked them. It was easy for you, because all you did was receive the resolution to your confusion about a concept that you claimed was "simple"...

I was discussing Doug's claim that Peter preached one Gospel, but Paul another Gospel. I don't accept that claim.

Yet you admitted you were puzzled by the verse from Romans, which I helped clear up. You're inconsistent.

The Vatican website, in Pope Pius IX's Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus, discusses the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, highlighting that Mary was preserved free from original sin. Ineffabilis Deus describes Mary as being "preserved free from all stain of original sin" from the moment...

Yeah, to me, the Bible is already complicated enough, impossible, so, I try not to add to it or remove from it.

By "too much" I mean definitively stating "Mary is a type". I do not position myself that way. You may feel comfortable with making such pronouncements, but I am not. It is not, on the other hand, "too much" for the Apostle to refer to the Law as containing types and shadows, nor for me to...

LOL

No, "in the context", he's just being "hyperbolic"!

Anything beyond "yes, yes", or "no, no" is of the evil one--a vow that you will do this or that, that, by your word, it is a certainty, as sure as the Sun will rise in the morning, that the thing will occur, falls under "beyond 'yes, yes' or 'no, no'". When people ask, "Well, do you disagree...

Then James could be using hyperbole when he says "not by faith alone" LOL

The dogma of Mary's immaculate conception is BASED on the idea that she had to be without sin just as Eve had been without sin, because they view Mary as the New Eve--undermining the speculation that Mary is the New Eve puts a huge crack in the foundation of that dogma at the very least.

OK If an empty assertion somehow disproves my actual argument, then I can do the same and it disproves any argument you bring : "context is your enemy". There's the discussion is over. LOL Make no oath--I take Jesus and James at their word.

I'm not sure why you would see "Paul's Gospel" would differ--he also warns that those who do not persist in faith can be cut off (Ro 11:17-22).

@Doug If "faith comes by hearing God's Word", and there is only "one faith", that would mean that there is only one "Word of God" that people hear--ie, "one Gospel", God's testimony about His Son (1 Jn 5).

Being that the topic of the entire thread is debunking Mary as the New Eve, and how people make too much of Mary, to me, other instances of people magnifying Mary falls in line with the topic--to say that Mary is an example where someone obeyed God is one thing, and, obviously I agree, but to...