Search results

Yeah, who cares about "basics"--go join Islam, they came WAY later, and are WAY more "advanced".

When Paul says we're not under Law, he says what we are "under" is "Grace". "Under" doesn't mean "condemned"--then "under Grace" would mean "condemned by Grace". "Under" means "under the jurisdiction of". To be clear, the Gentiles obedience to the writing of the Law on their hearts (as...

That avatar is from "A Clockwork Orange"--to me, it is meant to convey "confrontation" and "reckoning" (because of what it means in the movie, if you know the scene--"Well, well, well..."). Well, it's important. "We are no longer under Law" only holds true for the Jew, but the Gentile was never...

Why waste my time? You're not a Fundamentalist. You don't take Scripture seriously. You even have the audacity to faultfind the Apostles. I reject your ideas. I have no interest in conversing with you--I'll talk about Scripture, then you'll just say "I'm not a Fundamentalist". Maybe if you took...

In that same context, Jesus said violence was a mismatch with the Holy Spirit, at this time. Already addressed this. Please do not continue raising points that have already been addressed.

Jesus explicitly forbade violent resistance to protect Him. In fact, they went and offered salvation to the very men who crucified Jesus Acts 2. All of the Apostles, except John, were martyred and did not command violent resistance or retribution. Paul was stoned and offered no violent...

It looks like we've already offered all our arguments and it's up to the readers to decide.

Jesus specified "For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me: ‘AND HE WAS COUNTED WITH WRONGDOERS’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” Some claim He said to buy swords so that the Scripture could be fulfilled that "He was counted among the wrongdoers". HOW...

That's not what the text says. It says "because who ever lives by the sword will die by the sword"--a rule that continued in effect over the Apostles lifetimes, which explains why they never used violence. "Believe" history? We already know how they did not interpret Jesus's Words. Yeah, God...

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but my view remains unchanged : Jesus rebuked Peter for that so it isn't something we should follow. We already know how they did not interpret those words : Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword for violence, and all the Apostles, except John, were...

1. I have (to me, surprisingly--usually, people don't really have anything to offer except statements I already know and agree with or errors that call for correction) found some elements of your posts to be insightful and helpful. 2. The issue with thinking "works of law" are only "to be...

I wouldn't mind discussing this on an appropriate thread--I've seen way too many discussions get flipped into "OSAS", "Saved by Works or Faith", etc, and I relish order.

Just as a quick note : John 3 had nothing to do with baptism. "Water and Spirit" : "...out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water (this He spake of the Spirit)..." shows that "water" and "Spirit" are just about or completely synonymous.

Yup.

Thanks for mentioning this. It'd never occurred to me that when Paul mentions "works of the Law... for by the Law comes knowledge of sin" Romans 3:20 he is talking about "transgression" there too. I'm sure this could help in understanding Romans.

1. The whole purpose for having brought the distinction (between the sins of the Jews vs the Gentiles--ie, Jews committed "transgression", or "knowingly" sinned, whereas the Gentiles had not been given specific revelation) was to establish that "knowledge of sin" which came "by the Law" was...

What was discussed was Christianity--and because some people object to that interpretation of Romans 7, it can in part be substantiated, since Paul was a Pharisee, by discussing what other Pharisees believe/d. When I said "Jews are 'no longer' under Law--Gentiles never were under Law, so they...

Verbal non-aggression and physical non-aggression are not at odds--it's not like you can't have physical non-aggression just because you have verbal non-aggression.

Why would a tenet of verbal non-aggression (as is being inculcated here) be mutually exclusive with a tenet of physical non-aggression? They're just two aspects of the same life of love and peace.

"Non-violence, based on the examples of Jesus and His Apostles [details in many posts I've made], and this interpretation of 'turning the other cheek' are not mutually exclusive. "