Search results

And they footnote it (AFAIK). Let us face it, when it only appears in the TR and no earlier manuscripts, and some evidence points to it being a footnote in some copies, it is a controversial passage. It is 100% true and the trinity can be explicitly defended without that verse that may or may...

And they footnote it (AFAIK). Let us face it, when it only appears in the TR and no earlier manuscripts, and some evidence points to it being a footnote in some copies, it is a controversial passage. It is 100% true and the trinity can be explicitly defended without that verse that may or may...

I don't believe that. I haver done enormous studies on textual evidence and manuscripts. I am just wanting to find out what you have learned to uphold the TR as infallible.

So do you not eat pork? Do you not wear mixed fabrics? Do you refrain from work on Saturday? Do you not eat shellfish? Do you not have intercourse with your wife during menstruation? Do you not eat meat from animals with split hooves? Or is your 100%ssure they teach the OT-NT without fail...

I agree, I am just trying to see what the naysayers have as evidence to simply reject this practice out of hand.

Never said this was a court of law. Yes you can write whatevver silliness you wish here! But you are in the court of public opinion amongst believers. I have just been asking what evidence you have to form your opinion that it was Pauls intent just to address a Corinthian issue. Well you can...

Paul was not opposed to the written Law in several places he called it good and holy. He did not create a new law. He was passing on what teh practices of ALL the churches EVERYWHERE in Jewish, Greek, Roman, and Egyptian and Ethiopian cultures. But you still have not answered the question...

All of this is your reading you ropinion into Scripture. who taught you this?

No I am not being intentioally deceptive. another of your bearing false witness. so you come on this thread, make your claims and then refuse to back them up with evidence? Okay then- you are on the do not take this one serious list.

And I am asking what evidence do you have to conclude that! Paul did say this: 1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. No where in the topic does Paul say he is offering just an opinion. He does say it is something...

I agree 100% with this passage.

28 of 32 English translations have this verse in it. 31 of 34 English bibles have this verse. 38/38 English bibles includes the whole passage. Half the bibles have this insertion. Only the textus receptus has the insertion. All other available manuscripts do not. I need to study this more...

Sorry but you need evidence to support it not being found for 14 centuries of writing to say it is part of the original. The mantra date doesn't matter is generally not true.

REread your own post #255 then. for you said Paul was making new law. Never mind, here is the quote from your own typing: So I will accept your apology! I also said it was not a law but a teaching that ALL teh churches EVERYWHERE were following, not just Corinth. So if I am misinformed-...

I fully understand that. Now show that when Paul said head coverings was for all the churches of God- He was just offering an opinion instead of what He said.

No- you come to the person called Jesus not by applying what He taught. If Jesus meant applying His lessons, He would have said so! Instead He said we have to come to Him! Not His teachings!!!! I apply the teachings commanded, but that only matters after I came to Jesus for salvation! That...

Danie 9 by itself gives no conclusive declaration as to who the Prince of the People who destroy Jerusalem is. Other than history proving He would be some sort of Roman ruler, that is all Daniel 9 tells us. to say it is Jesus is to twist Scripture beyond recognition. But when you look at the...

That is what I said! So what is your issue??????????????????????????

I read what you wrote. so either I misunderstood what you were trying to say or you are just once again bearing false witness. You siad I was lying when I said the Sabbath was just for Israel and then you write it is just for Israel. What is your position? The seventh day was just for...

Well as the 70th week of Daniel or "the tribulation period (that 70th week) haven't occurred yet, yes the rapture is most definitely pre trib as Paul declared in Thesselonians.