Search results

1. "Not under Law but under Grace" refers to means of service. God's servants once presumably were to serve by observing the Law, now they are no longer under the jurisdiction of the Law but they are under the jurisdiction of the Spirit of Grace. 2. Law commanded love for neighbor as self and...

You need to reread my argument because you clearly missed my point and did not respond to it. 1. Gentiles were never under Torah. 2. Both believing Jews and Gentiles are "under Grace". His Word is the Tanakh--you've proven my point by not knowing the most basic thing about what I was saying...

Jesus : "...unless someone"--amniotic birth is already assumed--"is born again they cannot see the Kingdom of God." Nicodemus : "How can one be born when he is old? Can he enter again into his mother's womb and be born again?" Jesus : “...unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot...

God is making the distinction, so when I read God making the distinction, I'm reading what God is "telling me". Gentiles were never under Law, thus death does not set them free. You can't remove shoes that you never wore. The Emancipation Proclamation set many Blacks in America free, it did not...

Paul is writing Scripture, so there's no possibility of going away from Scripture by his tradition, thus this is irrelevant. Paul was a Pharisee Acts 23:6; therefore, analyzing what Pharisees believe/d grants insight into Paul's argument in Romans 7:1-6. The Talmudic view substantiates that...

1. Yes, according to Christ's Law--he became all things to all people because he was under Christ's Law and wanted to win people to Christ and His Law. 2. Anyway, the original point (let's not lose the forest for the trees) was that there is an overlap between "good works" and "works of Law"...

It would be redundant. He's already referring to a person entering the Kingdom--all persons are already assumed to have been "born of amniotic fluid" so why would He now introduce such a condition for them entering the Kingdom? He's talking about living waters of the Spirit.

Good, then you agree with me slaughtering a sheep is nothing like slaughtering a lion. Nope, the ones that were already addressed I didn't answer--I only answered the new ones. Yes, no violence (as in "self-defense"--the topic of the thread) commands are given--I stand by that. Not even...

I've personally slaughtered a sheep and I can say you don't know what you're talking about. The sheep is docile. You and two others hold it down, and you chop its head off, and it's done. Try to go slaughter a lion like that. Please record it. Again, you have to add to Scripture to claim they...

@Amazed@grace Again, essentially nothing new is being said. I don't like repeating myself. Unless you have something new to say, I don't need to reply.

Answered all the way back in Page 7: I don't think I ever said "Scripture states", I was referring to tradition. James was martyred, yes--and John's Gospel alludes to Peter's martyrdom. We also have the martyrdom of John the Baptist, Stephen, Paul's victims, Antipas Revelation 2:13. For all...

I, of course, am rejecting this false accusation--anyone can read my responses and see I've neither "changed Scripture to my liking" nor failed to "actually address Scripture". Maybe the fact that you feel so free to accuse me of these things is proof you haven't read as carefully as I've responded.

Already told you I'm not discussing Scripture with you dude.

No address of Romans 14. Interesting. This definition of "works of Law" has already been debunked. Show me a single Scripture that says "not under Law, standing beside the Law". That's nowhere. It says "not under Law, but under Grace". It says "dead to the Law that I might live to God"...

Mistake. Will go correct.