Search results

I'm obviously getting him to acknowledge the point he's not acknowledging (part of a discussion--not saying I'm infallible, I'm inviting discussion). If you're interested in addressing the evidence, I'm all ears.

No, I'm mocking the patheticness of their arguments they use to mislead Christians, and try to justify what is clearly unjustifiable. They must be mocked, as they endanger multitudes of people with their lies, and make a mockery of God's Word.

You claimed God's Law doesn't change, and that the Old Covenant Law (minus sacrifices) is written on our hearts. That was disproven.

Did you read my post debunking your "we're under the Law" theory? And don't tell me "not under Law" means "not condemned by Law", because the next words say "we're under Grace", so that would have to mean that "we're condemned by Grace", which, in any case, would not clarify why "sin will not...

Christ literally said one of the Torah laws, keeping of vows, was "of the evil one" (Mt 5). James, likewise, prohibits making "any vow" (Ja 5). Since you will say, "But Christ upheld the Law, He didn't come to do away with the Law": the underlying principle of "keep your vows" was "Do not treat...

I'm not going to let you keep running away to other passages, and warrantlessly "tasking" me--you got to raise Matthew 7, and I knocked your misrepresentation of it down (it actually proves that my point from Galatians 6:6-10 is correct--Christ DOES repay men with eternal life for doing good...

They love to quote Ezekiel 16:49, as you say, to try to wave off the Christian who says the sin of Sodom was homosexuality, but let me quote the very next verse: Ezekiel 16 50They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it. Which "abomination" resulted from...

1. So... still not addressing the passages. Still running away. 2. Stop lying, pretending we're anything like in this matter: I speak directly, you run from Scripture. I'm not interested in investing myself in any more of your little "Scriptural challenges" until YOU address the passages I...

Ezekiel actually says "therefore they were haughty and did an abomination" after saying that first part.

Clarification for the sake of the readers (I already know the ears of author are plugged and uninterested in any proof that he has erred in his study) : Christ DID uphold the Law: the underlying Principle of "keep your vows" was "Do not treat God or His Name with disrespect, but honor Him by...

Nope, James says the same--make no vow at all. Anyway, in my experience, you guys are hard headed, so I'll just leave what I said there to help readers who might otherwise be led into your delusion. Thanks for being an opportunity for me to share truth!

Oops : Jesus overruled Torah, nullifying commands--eg, calling the Torah's command to take and keep vows "of the evil one" (Mt 5). You're misapprehending His Words apparently.

Revelation says men will not walk by the light of the Sun or Moon--if it referred to literal 7th Day Sabbaths and New Moons, that'd be pretty difficult to do. If, on the other hand, the Sabbath was a shadow of things to come, and the fulfillment of the shadow is in Christ, as Hebrews 10 and...

1. So... still not addressing the passages. 2. Jesus is not contradicting Galatians 6. Not sure how this is unclear to you, but I will clarify it here and now (I don't run from Scripture, I address it head-on, like a man): Jesus finds fault with these FALSE PROPHETS, who mislead many by...

1. So... still not addressing the passages. 2. I never said, "Everyone, we're under the Law, like the man in Romans 7", because "the Law is weak in that it relies on sinful flesh [which has nothing good in it to correspond to the good demands of the Law, as you noted from Ro 7]" (Ro 8:3; Gal...

I stand by what I've said. If you disagree with anything I've said, for any reason whatsoever, again, "duly noted".

1. So... still not addressing the passages. 2. I desire to believe God's Word, because I believe God's grace is contained in "the Word of God's grace". Is that a sin I am committing?

In the Law, the priests were forbidden to wear garments that made them sweat in the sanctuary. Lol

Right, but I'm not going to invest in a side discussion on the topic : you obviously disagree with me, and I said "duly noted" because of that. It's not any sort of "non sequitur". We can leave it at that. That's the hitch: I do not take this individual's posts as sincere or honest. I entertain...

I don't think you know what a "non sequitur" is. You can do what you think, that has nothing to do with me--I'm not interested in your "direction", so don't waste your energy.